The need for RDF in Linked Data

[David Booth]

[Followup to semantic-web-***@public.gmane.org please]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: The need for RDF in Linked Data
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 01:26:35 -0400
From: David Booth <david-v6neA7yUtRodnm+***@public.gmane.org>
CC: semantic-web <semantic-web-***@public.gmane.org>

There seems to be some persistent misunderstanding about the
role of RDF in Linked Data, as evidenced by comments like
the following:

"RDF is just one implementation of Linked Data"

If Linked Data is intended to support the goal of the Semantic
Web, then unless the Semantic Web is re-architected with a new
foundation, RDF is *essential* to Linked Data -- not optional,
and not merely one potential choice among many. the reason is
that the Semantic Web critically relies on the use of *both*
a standard universal identification convention (URIs) for its
vocabulary, *and* a standard universal information model (RDF)
for making statements.

To understand why a standard universal information model
is important, one must think back to the central goal
of the Semantic Web. the goal is to enable computers
to do more useful things for us: to enable them to
find, share, combine and make meaningful use of web data.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-semantic-web
This means that a client application processing some web data
should be able to follow links in that data to find more data
that it can *also* meaningfully use. the only way that can be
achieved is by using a standard universal information model.
otherwise the client application will have no reliable way to
properly interpret that new data.

For example, suppose the client application dereferences
a URI and obtains a comma-separated-values (CSV) document.
unless the client application knew how to interpret that file,
it would not be able to make meaningful use of that data.
it would be stuck at a dead end. but if the document were
expressed in a standard universal information model, then
the client application would at least be able to understand
what statements the document was making. and if the client
application did not already understand the vocabulary --
i.e. the meanings of the URIs -- then it could recursively,
using Linked Data techniques, dereference the URIs to discover
their meanings.

Why does RDF need to be the standard universal information
model? not because it is perfect, but because *some* standard
universal information model is needed, and that is the one
that was chosen, just as URIs were chosen to be the standard
universal identification convention. furthermore, because RDF
is syntax independent, a document does not have to *look* like
RDF in order to be interpreted as RDF. for example, GRDDL allows
arbitrary XML to be interpreted as RDF. The enormous value
of JSON-LD is that it provides a more web-developer-friendly
syntax than ever before for a universal information model.

why couldn't other sufficiently powerful information models
achieve the same Semantic Web goal just as well, and be used
in addition to RDF? Because that would fragment the web.
instead of one web we would have many webs, each one its own
walled garden, and that is not be Semantic Web goal. without a
shared information model, client applications would not be
able to meaningfully combine the data from those walled gardens.

I do not expect anyone to take my word for this. All I ask is
that you think about it. Because if you do, the conclusion
is unavoidable: if Linked Data is going to support the goal
of the Semantic Web (without re-architecting it), then Linked
Data MUST be based on RDF.

this obviously begs the question: *should* Linked Data support
the goal of the Semantic Web? that certainly was TimBL's
intent when he coined the term and wrote his article about
it: http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html (but I
continue to be amazed at how differently different people seem
to understand that article, so I imagine there would still be
some who would disagree even with *that* point.)

*I* certainly think that Linked Data should support the goal
of the Semantic Web. and I think that JSON-LD -- *because*
it will be such a web-developer-friendly RDF syntax (assuming
a few small issues are resolved, so that it really *is* an
RDF syntax) -- will be a big step forward.

If the term Linked Data is "hijacked" by a broader population
to mean *any* sort of data that is linked -- not necessarily
RDF -- then this will be a major loss to the Semantic Web
community, because it is very hard to come up with simple ways
to communicate the essence of the Semantic Web. The Linked
Data meme has been extremely helpful. If the RDF component
is lost, we will have lost the best meme we have ever had for
explaining the Semantic Web.`

David

[Followup to semantic-web-***@public.gmane.org please]

[Luca Matteis]

Plus, if you don't have RDF strictly within the definition of Linked Data,
what else do you have? Just any generic data that is linked? Isn't that the
Web (not Linked Data)?


On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:35 AM, David Booth <david-v6neA7yUtRodnm+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> [Followup to semantic-web-***@public.gmane.org please]
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: The need for RDF in Linked Data
> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 01:26:35 -0400
> From: David Booth <david-v6neA7yUtRodnm+***@public.gmane.org>
> CC: semantic-web <semantic-web-***@public.gmane.org>
>
> There seems to be some persistent misunderstanding about the
> role of RDF in Linked Data, as evidenced by comments like
> the following:
>
> "RDF is just one implementation of Linked Data"
>
> If Linked Data is intended to support the goal of the Semantic
> Web, then unless the Semantic Web is re-architected with a new
> foundation, RDF is *essential* to Linked Data -- not optional,
> and not merely one potential choice among many. the reason is
> that the Semantic Web critically relies on the use of *both*
> a standard universal identification convention (URIs) for its
> vocabulary, *and* a standard universal information model (RDF)
> for making statements.
>
> To understand why a standard universal information model
> is important, one must think back to the central goal
> of the Semantic Web. the goal is to enable computers
> to do more useful things for us: to enable them to
> find, share, combine and make meaningful use of web data.
> http://www.scientificamerican.**com/article.cfm?id=the-**semantic-web<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-semantic-web>
> This means that a client application processing some web data
> should be able to follow links in that data to find more data
> that it can *also* meaningfully use. the only way that can be
> achieved is by using a standard universal information model.
> otherwise the client application will have no reliable way to
> properly interpret that new data.
>
> For example, suppose the client application dereferences
> a URI and obtains a comma-separated-values (CSV) document.
> unless the client application knew how to interpret that file,
> it would not be able to make meaningful use of that data.
> it would be stuck at a dead end. but if the document were
> expressed in a standard universal information model, then
> the client application would at least be able to understand
> what statements the document was making. and if the client
> application did not already understand the vocabulary --
> i.e. the meanings of the URIs -- then it could recursively,
> using Linked Data techniques, dereference the URIs to discover
> their meanings.
>
> Why does RDF need to be the standard universal information
> model? not because it is perfect, but because *some* standard
> universal information model is needed, and that is the one
> that was chosen, just as URIs were chosen to be the standard
> universal identification convention. furthermore, because RDF
> is syntax independent, a document does not have to *look* like
> RDF in order to be interpreted as RDF. for example, GRDDL allows
> arbitrary XML to be interpreted as RDF. The enormous value
> of JSON-LD is that it provides a more web-developer-friendly
> syntax than ever before for a universal information model.
>
> why couldn't other sufficiently powerful information models
> achieve the same Semantic Web goal just as well, and be used
> in addition to RDF? Because that would fragment the web.
> instead of one web we would have many webs, each one its own
> walled garden, and that is not be Semantic Web goal. without a
> shared information model, client applications would not be
> able to meaningfully combine the data from those walled gardens.
>
> I do not expect anyone to take my word for this. All I ask is
> that you think about it. Because if you do, the conclusion
> is unavoidable: if Linked Data is going to support the goal
> of the Semantic Web (without re-architecting it), then Linked
> Data MUST be based on RDF.
>
> this obviously begs the question: *should* Linked Data support
> the goal of the Semantic Web? that certainly was TimBL's
> intent when he coined the term and wrote his article about
> it: http://www.w3.org/**DesignIssues/LinkedData.html<http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html>(but I
> continue to be amazed at how differently different people seem
> to understand that article, so I imagine there would still be
> some who would disagree even with *that* point.)
>
> *I* certainly think that Linked Data should support the goal
> of the Semantic Web. and I think that JSON-LD -- *because*
> it will be such a web-developer-friendly RDF syntax (assuming
> a few small issues are resolved, so that it really *is* an
> RDF syntax) -- will be a big step forward.
>
> If the term Linked Data is "hijacked" by a broader population
> to mean *any* sort of data that is linked -- not necessarily
> RDF -- then this will be a major loss to the Semantic Web
> community, because it is very hard to come up with simple ways
> to communicate the essence of the Semantic Web. The Linked
> Data meme has been extremely helpful. If the RDF component
> is lost, we will have lost the best meme we have ever had for
> explaining the Semantic Web.`
>
> David
>
> [Followup to semantic-web-***@public.gmane.org please]
>
>
>
>
>

[Melvin Carvalho]

On 17 June 2013 12:02, Luca Matteis <lmatteis-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Plus, if you don't have RDF strictly within the definition of Linked Data,
> what else do you have? Just any generic data that is linked? Isn't that the
> Web (not Linked Data)?
>

It depends whether or not you consider the web a data space.

DanC once made the comment, 'The important word in "semantic web" is "web"'


>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:35 AM, David Booth <david-v6neA7yUtRodnm+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>> [Followup to semantic-web-***@public.gmane.org please]
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: The need for RDF in Linked Data
>> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 01:26:35 -0400
>> From: David Booth <david-v6neA7yUtRodnm+***@public.gmane.org>
>> CC: semantic-web <semantic-web-***@public.gmane.org>
>>
>> There seems to be some persistent misunderstanding about the
>> role of RDF in Linked Data, as evidenced by comments like
>> the following:
>>
>> "RDF is just one implementation of Linked Data"
>>
>> If Linked Data is intended to support the goal of the Semantic
>> Web, then unless the Semantic Web is re-architected with a new
>> foundation, RDF is *essential* to Linked Data -- not optional,
>> and not merely one potential choice among many. the reason is
>> that the Semantic Web critically relies on the use of *both*
>> a standard universal identification convention (URIs) for its
>> vocabulary, *and* a standard universal information model (RDF)
>> for making statements.
>>
>> To understand why a standard universal information model
>> is important, one must think back to the central goal
>> of the Semantic Web. the goal is to enable computers
>> to do more useful things for us: to enable them to
>> find, share, combine and make meaningful use of web data.
>> http://www.scientificamerican.**com/article.cfm?id=the-**semantic-web<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-semantic-web>
>> This means that a client application processing some web data
>> should be able to follow links in that data to find more data
>> that it can *also* meaningfully use. the only way that can be
>> achieved is by using a standard universal information model.
>> otherwise the client application will have no reliable way to
>> properly interpret that new data.
>>
>> For example, suppose the client application dereferences
>> a URI and obtains a comma-separated-values (CSV) document.
>> unless the client application knew how to interpret that file,
>> it would not be able to make meaningful use of that data.
>> it would be stuck at a dead end. but if the document were
>> expressed in a standard universal information model, then
>> the client application would at least be able to understand
>> what statements the document was making. and if the client
>> application did not already understand the vocabulary --
>> i.e. the meanings of the URIs -- then it could recursively,
>> using Linked Data techniques, dereference the URIs to discover
>> their meanings.
>>
>> Why does RDF need to be the standard universal information
>> model? not because it is perfect, but because *some* standard
>> universal information model is needed, and that is the one
>> that was chosen, just as URIs were chosen to be the standard
>> universal identification convention. furthermore, because RDF
>> is syntax independent, a document does not have to *look* like
>> RDF in order to be interpreted as RDF. for example, GRDDL allows
>> arbitrary XML to be interpreted as RDF. The enormous value
>> of JSON-LD is that it provides a more web-developer-friendly
>> syntax than ever before for a universal information model.
>>
>> why couldn't other sufficiently powerful information models
>> achieve the same Semantic Web goal just as well, and be used
>> in addition to RDF? Because that would fragment the web.
>> instead of one web we would have many webs, each one its own
>> walled garden, and that is not be Semantic Web goal. without a
>> shared information model, client applications would not be
>> able to meaningfully combine the data from those walled gardens.
>>
>> I do not expect anyone to take my word for this. All I ask is
>> that you think about it. Because if you do, the conclusion
>> is unavoidable: if Linked Data is going to support the goal
>> of the Semantic Web (without re-architecting it), then Linked
>> Data MUST be based on RDF.
>>
>> this obviously begs the question: *should* Linked Data support
>> the goal of the Semantic Web? that certainly was TimBL's
>> intent when he coined the term and wrote his article about
>> it: http://www.w3.org/**DesignIssues/LinkedData.html<http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html>(but I
>> continue to be amazed at how differently different people seem
>> to understand that article, so I imagine there would still be
>> some who would disagree even with *that* point.)
>>
>> *I* certainly think that Linked Data should support the goal
>> of the Semantic Web. and I think that JSON-LD -- *because*
>> it will be such a web-developer-friendly RDF syntax (assuming
>> a few small issues are resolved, so that it really *is* an
>> RDF syntax) -- will be a big step forward.
>>
>> If the term Linked Data is "hijacked" by a broader population
>> to mean *any* sort of data that is linked -- not necessarily
>> RDF -- then this will be a major loss to the Semantic Web
>> community, because it is very hard to come up with simple ways
>> to communicate the essence of the Semantic Web. The Linked
>> Data meme has been extremely helpful. If the RDF component
>> is lost, we will have lost the best meme we have ever had for
>> explaining the Semantic Web.`
>>
>> David
>>
>> [Followup to semantic-web-***@public.gmane.org please]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[Luca Matteis]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> It depends whether or not you consider the web a data space.


Wasn't the whole point of Linked Data to create a "Web of Data" rather than
a "Web of Documents". To me, if it's not RDF, then they're still documents.

So how do we define the line between Documents and Data? Is HTML a document
and RDF data? But then HTML annotated as RDFa becomes data?

I think the question now can boil down to this: what is the difference
between data and documents?

For me it's RDF.

[John Erickson]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Luca Matteis <lmatteis-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> So how do we define the line between Documents and Data? Is HTML a document
> and RDF data? But then HTML annotated as RDFa becomes data?
>

No. I think you're losing the "linked" distinction.

* You can use the Web to distribute data, but...
* ...if that data doesn't name and distinguish entities using URIs,
then it isn't (usefully) linked
* ...if that data doesn't declare relationships between entities with
URI-named predicates, then it isn't (usefully) linked

So, given a client's ability to interpret relationships between
entities expressed via e.g. RDFa, an HTML page can easily contribute
to the Web of Data.

John

--
John S. Erickson, Ph.D.
Director, Web Science Operations
Tetherless World Constellation (RPI)
<http://tw.rpi.edu> <olyerickson-***@public.gmane.org>
Twitter & Skype: olyerickson

[Melvin Carvalho]

On 17 June 2013 12:32, Luca Matteis <lmatteis-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Melvin Carvalho <
> melvincarvalho-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>> It depends whether or not you consider the web a data space.
>
>
> Wasn't the whole point of Linked Data to create a "Web of Data" rather
> than a "Web of Documents". To me, if it's not RDF, then they're still
> documents.
>

If you read "weaving the web" (or even the first few pages), it may lead
you to believe that the whole point of the WEB was to create a web of
data. Documents are the things we put our data on. The highest form of
data (5 star linked data) unambiguously links data to other data, that is
also machine readable. One standard to do this is RDF. There's lower
stars of linked data too, e.g. if documents were not machine readable we
wouldnt have search engines ...


>
> So how do we define the line between Documents and Data? Is HTML a
> document and RDF data? But then HTML annotated as RDFa becomes data?
>
> I think the question now can boil down to this: what is the difference
> between data and documents?
>
> For me it's RDF.
>

[Luca Matteis]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> One standard to do this is RDF.


What other standards are there? We need to follow W3C's standards right
(from Tim-Berner Lee's note)? So for me RDF is the only player in town.

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/17/13 1:35 AM, David Booth wrote:
>
> If the term Linked Data is "hijacked" by a broader population
> to mean *any* sort of data that is linked -- not necessarily
> RDF -- then this will be a major loss to the Semantic Web
> community, because it is very hard to come up with simple ways
> to communicate the essence of the Semantic Web. The Linked
> Data meme has been extremely helpful. If the RDF component
> is lost, we will have lost the best meme we have ever had for
> explaining the Semantic Web.`
David,

It's possible to debate a matter without unnecessary use of inflammatory
language. I would happily debate you any day about this subject matter,
but I struggle with your choice of words.

Have you considered that "hijacked" is utterly unnecessary in this
debate? Irrespective of who might be right or wrong, nobody is trying to
hijack anything. Put differently, can you make a convincing case against
that fact that by inserting RDF -- in immutable form -- into the Linked
Data conversation (retrospectively) it could also be perceived by some
as hijacking?

If you recall, your fundamental thesis is predicated on the notion that
it took TimBL 3 years (between 2006 and 2009) to realize that he was
inarticulate about RDF in all his prior Linked Data related memes.

--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/17/13 6:59 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Melvin Carvalho
> <melvincarvalho-***@public.gmane.org <mailto:melvincarvalho-***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>
> One standard to do this is RDF.
>
>
> What other standards are there? We need to follow W3C's standards
> right (from Tim-Berner Lee's note)? So for me RDF is the only player
> in town.
It is really important that you remember, that accepting the notion of
"independent invention" is an integral components of the Web's
architecture and philosophy. The Web isn't about being draconian or
tightly coupled to anything.

Linked Data is about making webby (or web-like) structured data. The
original meme from TimBL was all about a principled approach to making
Data webby (or web-like). You can follow the principles in meme with or
without knowledge of RDF and arrive at webby structured data.

What does RDF bring to the table then?

The ability to make semantics of the links (which denote relations)
*explicit* rather than *implicit*. Unfortunately, this virtue of RDF is
lost when its proponents loose track of its place in the broader
Semantic Web vision.

RDF enables the creation of Linked Data that's endowed with *explicit*
machine- and human-comprehensible entity relationship semantics. It
enables the development and exploitation of processors that are able to
apply reasoning to the webby-structured data -- since the semantics in
question are outlined by the RDF standard.

If you doubt my claim, you should indulge me in a very simple experiment
re., structured data and entity relationship semantics:


Webby Structured Data:

Simply copy and paste the following to a Web accessible location (URL)
and then share the URL via a response to this mail. If you can't then
simply let me know and I'll do that for you.

## Structured Data Representation using Turtle Notation ##

<>
a <#Document> .
<#mentions> "Linked Data" , "Linked Data", "Semantic Web", "Inference
Reasoning", "Web".
<#comment> "A mailing list post about Linked Data and RDF".
<#seeAlso> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data>,
<http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF>,
<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web>,
<http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web>

## End ##


Once completed, please let me know if that's RDF, Linked Data, or RDF
based Linked Data? In addition, let me know if that detracts from any
Linked Data meme that emphasizes the following:

1. entity denotation/naming using HTTP URIs
2. returning useful information (e.g., a description of the entity
denoted by the HTTP URI) when HTTP URI is looked up.

I reduced TimBL's meme down to two points since the ones I left out
simply expand the two outlined above.

--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Luca Matteis]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> The Web isn't about being draconian or tightly coupled to anything.


But the Web *IS* tightly coupled to HTTP! Why can't Linked Data then be
tightly coupled to RDF?

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/17/13 8:17 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Kingsley Idehen
> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>
> The Web isn't about being draconian or tightly coupled to anything.
>
>
> But the Web *IS* tightly coupled to HTTP! Why can't Linked Data then
> be tightly coupled to RDF?

The Web isn't tightly coupled to HTTP.

HTTP is an effective route to a global Web.

The magic is in the URI, the ability to provide abstraction that enables
the loose coupling of data access protocols and data representation formats.

FWIW -- when we started releasing Linked Data (at the start of this
journey) we did so using resolvable URIs for a variety of schemes, not
just HTTP. Even today, in the context of Web-scale verifiable identity,
we produce Linked Data solutions that don't mandate HTTP scheme URIs
while actually exploiting the kind of entity relationship fidelity that
RDF delivers.

The beauty of the World Wide Web is that it is actually loosely coupled
at its architectural core. HTTP is a productive short-cut to the Web due
its increasing ubiquity.

--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Luca Matteis]

Come on! If you're building something that works like the Web but isn't
using HTTP, then it's *not* the Web. It's something else that has similar
dynamics to the Web (like, I dunno, a gazillion of other things?).


On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> On 6/17/13 8:17 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
>
>> The Web isn't about being draconian or tightly coupled to anything.
>
>
> But the Web *IS* tightly coupled to HTTP! Why can't Linked Data then be
> tightly coupled to RDF?
>
>
> The Web isn't tightly coupled to HTTP.
>
> HTTP is an effective route to a global Web.
>
> The magic is in the URI, the ability to provide abstraction that enables
> the loose coupling of data access protocols and data representation formats.
>
> FWIW -- when we started releasing Linked Data (at the start of this
> journey) we did so using resolvable URIs for a variety of schemes, not just
> HTTP. Even today, in the context of Web-scale verifiable identity, we
> produce Linked Data solutions that don't mandate HTTP scheme URIs while
> actually exploiting the kind of entity relationship fidelity that RDF
> delivers.
>
> The beauty of the World Wide Web is that it is actually loosely coupled at
> its architectural core. HTTP is a productive short-cut to the Web due its
> increasing ubiquity.
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/17/13 8:34 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
> Come on! If you're building something that works like the Web but
> isn't using HTTP, then it's *not* the Web. It's something else that
> has similar dynamics to the Web (like, I dunno, a gazillion of other
> things?).

You see, that's the fundamental misconception. We have "Web" as a
colloquialism for "World Wide Web" and in that loose use the
misconception that "Web" or "World Wide Web" are monikers for a system
that's HTTP specific.

Simple question: why do many browsers handle the following schemes:

1. ftp
2. mailto
3. tel.

Why do mobile user agents implicitly cater for multiple URI schemes
i.e., URI scheme handlers are native to the application development
environment? Custom URI resolvers are natural to the architecture of a Web.

As you can see, there is a common theme here i.e., generic terms such as
Web, Linked Data etc.. are now being shoehorned into very specific boxes
that ultimately contradict the very architecture and philosophy of
what's become the World Wide Web.

HTTP (based on increasing ubiquity) is a cost-effective route to World
Wide Web participation and exploitation. That doesn't mean its the only
option, far from it!

URIs are the kernel. The seed of ingenuity that delivered the World Wide
Web on global scale.

Kingsley
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Kingsley Idehen
> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>
> On 6/17/13 8:17 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Kingsley Idehen
>> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>>
>> The Web isn't about being draconian or tightly coupled to
>> anything.
>>
>>
>> But the Web *IS* tightly coupled to HTTP! Why can't Linked Data
>> then be tightly coupled to RDF?
>
> The Web isn't tightly coupled to HTTP.
>
> HTTP is an effective route to a global Web.
>
> The magic is in the URI, the ability to provide abstraction that
> enables the loose coupling of data access protocols and data
> representation formats.
>
> FWIW -- when we started releasing Linked Data (at the start of
> this journey) we did so using resolvable URIs for a variety of
> schemes, not just HTTP. Even today, in the context of Web-scale
> verifiable identity, we produce Linked Data solutions that don't
> mandate HTTP scheme URIs while actually exploiting the kind of
> entity relationship fidelity that RDF delivers.
>
> The beauty of the World Wide Web is that it is actually loosely
> coupled at its architectural core. HTTP is a productive short-cut
> to the Web due its increasing ubiquity.
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>
>


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Barry Norton]

Agreed. It always amuses me to hear how Web/REST is not coupled to HTTP.

Applying for a Web job without HTML/HTTP skills is like applying for a
Linked Data job without RDF/HTTP.

The rest might be interesting to some, but is of zero practical consequence.

Barry


On 17/06/13 13:34, Luca Matteis wrote:
> Come on! If you're building something that works like the Web but
> isn't using HTTP, then it's *not* the Web. It's something else that
> has similar dynamics to the Web (like, I dunno, a gazillion of other
> things?).
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Kingsley Idehen
> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>
> On 6/17/13 8:17 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Kingsley Idehen
>> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>>
>> The Web isn't about being draconian or tightly coupled to
>> anything.
>>
>>
>> But the Web *IS* tightly coupled to HTTP! Why can't Linked Data
>> then be tightly coupled to RDF?
>
> The Web isn't tightly coupled to HTTP.
>
> HTTP is an effective route to a global Web.
>
> The magic is in the URI, the ability to provide abstraction that
> enables the loose coupling of data access protocols and data
> representation formats.
>
> FWIW -- when we started releasing Linked Data (at the start of
> this journey) we did so using resolvable URIs for a variety of
> schemes, not just HTTP. Even today, in the context of Web-scale
> verifiable identity, we produce Linked Data solutions that don't
> mandate HTTP scheme URIs while actually exploiting the kind of
> entity relationship fidelity that RDF delivers.
>
> The beauty of the World Wide Web is that it is actually loosely
> coupled at its architectural core. HTTP is a productive short-cut
> to the Web due its increasing ubiquity.
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>
>

[Melvin Carvalho]

On 17 June 2013 14:34, Luca Matteis <lmatteis-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Come on! If you're building something that works like the Web but isn't
> using HTTP, then it's *not* the Web. It's something else that has similar
> dynamics to the Web (like, I dunno, a gazillion of other things?).
>

SPDY?


>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
>
>> On 6/17/13 8:17 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
>>
>>> The Web isn't about being draconian or tightly coupled to anything.
>>
>>
>> But the Web *IS* tightly coupled to HTTP! Why can't Linked Data then be
>> tightly coupled to RDF?
>>
>>
>> The Web isn't tightly coupled to HTTP.
>>
>> HTTP is an effective route to a global Web.
>>
>> The magic is in the URI, the ability to provide abstraction that enables
>> the loose coupling of data access protocols and data representation formats.
>>
>> FWIW -- when we started releasing Linked Data (at the start of this
>> journey) we did so using resolvable URIs for a variety of schemes, not just
>> HTTP. Even today, in the context of Web-scale verifiable identity, we
>> produce Linked Data solutions that don't mandate HTTP scheme URIs while
>> actually exploiting the kind of entity relationship fidelity that RDF
>> delivers.
>>
>> The beauty of the World Wide Web is that it is actually loosely coupled
>> at its architectural core. HTTP is a productive short-cut to the Web due
>> its increasing ubiquity.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> Founder & CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[Luca Matteis]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> SPDY?


>From Wikipedia: *SPDY does not replace HTTP; it modifies the way HTTP
requests and responses are sent over the
wire.[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPDY#cite_note-SPDY_white_paper-1>
This
means that all existing server-side applications can be used without
modification if a SPDY-compatible translation layer is put in place.*

So it's essentially HTTP just called differently because it's faster.

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/17/13 8:49 AM, Barry Norton wrote:
>
> Agreed. It always amuses me to hear how Web/REST is not coupled to HTTP.
>
> Applying for a Web job without HTML/HTTP skills is like applying for a
> Linked Data job without RDF/HTTP.
>
> The rest might be interesting to some, but is of zero practical
> consequence.
>
> Barry

Barry,

The point here isn't about what's the perception. The debate here is
about technical reality expressed in architecture. Also, REST isn't
architecture at all, that's just an attempt to describe the kind of
client-server computing HTTP enables.

Does the world conflate the World Wide, Web, HTML, HTTP etc.. of course
they do. That doesn't turn it into actual technical architecture.


Kingsley
>
>
> On 17/06/13 13:34, Luca Matteis wrote:
>> Come on! If you're building something that works like the Web but
>> isn't using HTTP, then it's *not* the Web. It's something else that
>> has similar dynamics to the Web (like, I dunno, a gazillion of other
>> things?).
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Kingsley Idehen
>> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/17/13 8:17 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Kingsley Idehen
>>> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The Web isn't about being draconian or tightly coupled to
>>> anything.
>>>
>>>
>>> But the Web *IS* tightly coupled to HTTP! Why can't Linked Data
>>> then be tightly coupled to RDF?
>>
>> The Web isn't tightly coupled to HTTP.
>>
>> HTTP is an effective route to a global Web.
>>
>> The magic is in the URI, the ability to provide abstraction that
>> enables the loose coupling of data access protocols and data
>> representation formats.
>>
>> FWIW -- when we started releasing Linked Data (at the start of
>> this journey) we did so using resolvable URIs for a variety of
>> schemes, not just HTTP. Even today, in the context of Web-scale
>> verifiable identity, we produce Linked Data solutions that don't
>> mandate HTTP scheme URIs while actually exploiting the kind of
>> entity relationship fidelity that RDF delivers.
>>
>> The beauty of the World Wide Web is that it is actually loosely
>> coupled at its architectural core. HTTP is a productive short-cut
>> to the Web due its increasing ubiquity.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> Founder & CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>> Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Melvin Carvalho]

On 17 June 2013 14:49, Barry Norton <barry.norton-GLb3q/kNL5FWk0Htik3J/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

>
> Agreed. It always amuses me to hear how Web/REST is not coupled to HTTP.
>
> Applying for a Web job without HTML/HTTP skills is like applying for a
> Linked Data job without RDF/HTTP.
>
> The rest might be interesting to some, but is of zero practical
> consequence.
>

It's simply about modularity and separations of concerns. For many people
the internet and the web are the same thing, and in fact the distinction
makes nor practical difference to their lives. But for those architecting
systems, good engineering principles can be the margin between success and
failure.


>
> Barry
>
>
>
> On 17/06/13 13:34, Luca Matteis wrote:
>
> Come on! If you're building something that works like the Web but isn't
> using HTTP, then it's *not* the Web. It's something else that has similar
> dynamics to the Web (like, I dunno, a gazillion of other things?).
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
>
>> On 6/17/13 8:17 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
>>
>>> The Web isn't about being draconian or tightly coupled to anything.
>>
>>
>> But the Web *IS* tightly coupled to HTTP! Why can't Linked Data then be
>> tightly coupled to RDF?
>>
>>
>> The Web isn't tightly coupled to HTTP.
>>
>> HTTP is an effective route to a global Web.
>>
>> The magic is in the URI, the ability to provide abstraction that enables
>> the loose coupling of data access protocols and data representation formats.
>>
>> FWIW -- when we started releasing Linked Data (at the start of this
>> journey) we did so using resolvable URIs for a variety of schemes, not just
>> HTTP. Even today, in the context of Web-scale verifiable identity, we
>> produce Linked Data solutions that don't mandate HTTP scheme URIs while
>> actually exploiting the kind of entity relationship fidelity that RDF
>> delivers.
>>
>> The beauty of the World Wide Web is that it is actually loosely coupled
>> at its architectural core. HTTP is a productive short-cut to the Web due
>> its increasing ubiquity.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> Founder & CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Karl Dubost]

Luca,

Luca Matteis [2013-06-17T08:34]:
> Come on! If you're building something that works like the Web but isn't using HTTP, then it's *not* the Web. It's something else that has similar dynamics to the Web (like, I dunno, a gazillion of other things?).


HTTP is an important feature of the Web, a very fundamental one. Nobody will disagree with that. BUT it is the URI which creates the Web. See Architecture of the World Wide Web.


On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:19:19 GMT
In Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One
At http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#interaction

3. Interaction

Communication between agents over a network about
resources involves URIs, messages, and data. The
Web's protocols (including HTTP, FTP, SOAP, NNTP,
and SMTP) are based on the exchange of messages. A
message may include data as well as metadata about
a resource (such as the "Alternates" and "Vary"
HTTP headers), the message data, and the message
itself (such as the "Transfer-encoding" HTTP
header). A message may even include metadata about
the message metadata (for message-integrity
checks, for instance).


--
Karl Dubost
http://www.la-grange.net/karl/

[Barry Norton]

You know, the whole thing reminds me of the SOAP documents listing SMTP
as an alternative transport.

And my prediction is that the whole discussion will be as fruitless.

Wake me up when the note tying Linked Data to RDF over HTTP becomes
anything other than best practice... sorry, scratch that, sole practice.

Barry



On 17/06/13 14:33, Karl Dubost wrote:
> Luca,
>
> Luca Matteis [2013-06-17T08:34]:
>> Come on! If you're building something that works like the Web but isn't using HTTP, then it's *not* the Web. It's something else that has similar dynamics to the Web (like, I dunno, a gazillion of other things?).
>
> HTTP is an important feature of the Web, a very fundamental one. Nobody will disagree with that. BUT it is the URI which creates the Web. See Architecture of the World Wide Web.
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:19:19 GMT
> In Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One
> At http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#interaction
>
> 3. Interaction
>
> Communication between agents over a network about
> resources involves URIs, messages, and data. The
> Web's protocols (including HTTP, FTP, SOAP, NNTP,
> and SMTP) are based on the exchange of messages. A
> message may include data as well as metadata about
> a resource (such as the "Alternates" and "Vary"
> HTTP headers), the message data, and the message
> itself (such as the "Transfer-encoding" HTTP
> header). A message may even include metadata about
> the message metadata (for message-integrity
> checks, for instance).
>
>

[Luca Matteis]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Karl Dubost <karl-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Nobody will disagree with that. BUT it is the URI which creates the Web.


Nothing in the thing you cited suggests that URI is the only technology
which "creates" the Web. Like, what do you mean by "creates"? There's a
hole bunch of tech (even JavaScript/CSS/HTML) that "creates" the Web.

All I'm saying is that HTTP is strictly part of it, and we both agree with
that.

So is RDF for Linked Data.

[Karl Dubost]

Luca Matteis [2013-06-17T09:44]:
> All I'm saying is that HTTP is strictly part of it, and we both agree with that.

nope. We do not both agree with that. :)

> The Web's protocols (including HTTP, FTP, SOAP, NNTP,
> and SMTP) are based on the exchange of messages.

Go read the full document :)



--
Karl Dubost
http://www.la-grange.net/karl/

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/17/13 9:44 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Karl Dubost <karl-***@public.gmane.org
> <mailto:karl-***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>
> Nobody will disagree with that. BUT it is the URI which creates
> the Web.
>
>
> Nothing in the thing you cited suggests that URI is the only
> technology which "creates" the Web. Like, what do you mean by
> "creates"? There's a hole bunch of tech (even JavaScript/CSS/HTML)
> that "creates" the Web.
>
> All I'm saying is that HTTP is strictly part of it, and we both agree
> with that.
>
> So is RDF for Linked Data.

Linked Data is something you can produce, is extremely useful form,
using RDF.
Linked Data is also something you can produce, without any knowledge of RDF.

The statements above make the fundamental assumption that RDF is an
enhancement of the long established entity relationship model.
Basically, RDF didn't drop for the sky devoid of any genealogy.

Most important of all, RDF doesn't need to own Linked Data in order to
justify its existence. There's a lot of virtue in being able to
incorporate human- and machine-comprehensible entity relationship
semantics into structured data representation and publication.

As I've stated repeatedly, conflating RDF and Linked Data is ultimately
a disservice to both. These two things have distinct defining
characteristics.


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Luca Matteis]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> Linked Data is also something you can produce, without any knowledge of
> RDF.


What do you mean "without any knowledge of RDF"? How do you produce Linked
Data without RDF? Please give us an example before making statements on
behalf of the community.

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/17/13 11:02 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Kingsley Idehen
> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>
> Linked Data is also something you can produce, without any
> knowledge of RDF.
>
>
> What do you mean "without any knowledge of RDF"? How do you produce
> Linked Data without RDF? Please give us an example before making
> statements on behalf of the community.
If you recall (earlier today) I presented you with a simple exercise
which would answer the question you've posed above, demonstrably.

Here's that I posted:

Webby Structured Data:

Simply copy and paste the following to a Web accessible location (URL)
and then share the URL via a response to this mail. If you can't then
simply let me know and I'll do that for you.

## Structured Data Representation using Turtle Notation ##

<>
a <#Document> .
<#mentions> "Linked Data" , "Linked Data", "Semantic Web", "Inference
Reasoning", "Web".
<#comment> "A mailing list post about Linked Data and RDF".
<#seeAlso> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data>,
<http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF>,
<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web>,
<http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web>

## End ##

What is the above to you?

1. Webby Structured Data -- constructable using basic knowledge of
Entity Relationship Models e.g. EAV (Entity-Attribute-Value based
structured data representation)
2. RDF based Structured Data -- i.e., structured data endowed with
machine- and human-comprehensible entity relationship semantics as
defined by RDF (a framework).

Related:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity--attribute--value_model -- EAV
2. http://bit.ly/YTdz3N - Peter Chen's circa. 1976 dissertation that
covers unified views of data (note: a simple example of these concepts
that even predate the World Wide Web).

--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Luca Matteis]

Done: http://codepad.org/7REcSynR/raw.txt

That's still RDF so I don't get your point.


On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> On 6/17/13 11:02 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
>
>> Linked Data is also something you can produce, without any knowledge of
>> RDF.
>
>
> What do you mean "without any knowledge of RDF"? How do you produce Linked
> Data without RDF? Please give us an example before making statements on
> behalf of the community.
>
> If you recall (earlier today) I presented you with a simple exercise which
> would answer the question you've posed above, demonstrably.
>
> Here's that I posted:
>
>
> Webby Structured Data:
>
> Simply copy and paste the following to a Web accessible location (URL) and
> then share the URL via a response to this mail. If you can't then simply
> let me know and I'll do that for you.
>
> ## Structured Data Representation using Turtle Notation ##
>
> <>
> a <#Document> .
> <#mentions> "Linked Data" , "Linked Data", "Semantic Web", "Inference
> Reasoning", "Web".
> <#comment> "A mailing list post about Linked Data and RDF".
> <#seeAlso> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data><http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data>,
> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF>,
> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web><http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web>,
> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web><http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web>
>
> ## End ##
>
> What is the above to you?
>
> 1. Webby Structured Data -- constructable using basic knowledge of Entity
> Relationship Models e.g. EAV (Entity-Attribute-Value based structured data
> representation)
> 2. RDF based Structured Data -- i.e., structured data endowed with
> machine- and human-comprehensible entity relationship semantics as defined
> by RDF (a framework).
>
> Related:
>
> 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity–attribute–value_model -- EAV
> 2. http://bit.ly/YTdz3N - Peter Chen's circa. 1976 dissertation that
> covers unified views of data (note: a simple example of these concepts that
> even predate the World Wide Web).
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/17/13 12:51 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
> Done: http://codepad.org/7REcSynR/raw.txt
>
> That's still RDF so I don't get your point.

Really? How?

curl -I http://codepad.org/7REcSynR/raw.txt

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:57:10 GMT
Server: Apache
Pragma: no-cache
Cache-Control: no-cache
Content-Disposition: attachment
Content-Length: 427
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8


What makes it RDF?

Related:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity–attribute–value_model
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity%E2%80%93attribute%E2%80%93value_model>
-- EAV
2. http://bit.ly/YTdz3N - Peter Chen's circa. 1976 dissertation that
covers unified views of data (note: a simple example of these concepts
that even predate the World Wide Web).

Kingsley

>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Kingsley Idehen
> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>
> On 6/17/13 11:02 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Kingsley Idehen
>> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Linked Data is also something you can produce, without any
>> knowledge of RDF.
>>
>>
>> What do you mean "without any knowledge of RDF"? How do you
>> produce Linked Data without RDF? Please give us an example before
>> making statements on behalf of the community.
> If you recall (earlier today) I presented you with a simple
> exercise which would answer the question you've posed above,
> demonstrably.
>
> Here's that I posted:
>
>
> Webby Structured Data:
>
> Simply copy and paste the following to a Web accessible location
> (URL) and then share the URL via a response to this mail. If you
> can't then simply let me know and I'll do that for you.
>
> ## Structured Data Representation using Turtle Notation ##
>
> <>
> a <#Document> .
> <#mentions> "Linked Data" , "Linked Data", "Semantic Web",
> "Inference Reasoning", "Web".
> <#comment> "A mailing list post about Linked Data and RDF".
> <#seeAlso> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data>
> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data>,
> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF>
> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF>,
> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web>
> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web>,
> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web>
> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web>
>
> ## End ##
>
> What is the above to you?
>
> 1. Webby Structured Data -- constructable using basic knowledge of
> Entity Relationship Models e.g. EAV (Entity-Attribute-Value based
> structured data representation)
> 2. RDF based Structured Data -- i.e., structured data endowed with
> machine- and human-comprehensible entity relationship semantics as
> defined by RDF (a framework).
>
> Related:
>
> 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity–attribute–value_model
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity%96attribute%96value_model> -- EAV
> 2. http://bit.ly/YTdz3N - Peter Chen's circa. 1976 dissertation
> that covers unified views of data (note: a simple example of these
> concepts that even predate the World Wide Web).
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>
>


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Luca Matteis]

What makes it RDF is that you can take the contents of this URL and stick
it in any popular RDF parser and it will parse it for you.

It's still bad quality Linked Data because it's missing mime-types. Anyway
back to my initial question "How do you produce Linked Data without RDF?"


On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> On 6/17/13 12:51 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>
> Done: http://codepad.org/7REcSynR/raw.txt
>
> That's still RDF so I don't get your point.
>
>
> Really? How?
>
> curl -I http://codepad.org/7REcSynR/raw.txt
>
> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:57:10 GMT
> Server: Apache
> Pragma: no-cache
> Cache-Control: no-cache
> Content-Disposition: attachment
> Content-Length: 427
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
> What makes it RDF?
>
> Related:
>
> 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity–attribute–value_model -- EAV
> 2. http://bit.ly/YTdz3N - Peter Chen's circa. 1976 dissertation that
> covers unified views of data (note: a simple example of these concepts that
> even predate the World Wide Web).
>
> Kingsley
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
>
>> On 6/17/13 11:02 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Linked Data is also something you can produce, without any knowledge of
>>> RDF.
>>
>>
>> What do you mean "without any knowledge of RDF"? How do you produce
>> Linked Data without RDF? Please give us an example before making statements
>> on behalf of the community.
>>
>> If you recall (earlier today) I presented you with a simple exercise
>> which would answer the question you've posed above, demonstrably.
>>
>> Here's that I posted:
>>
>>
>> Webby Structured Data:
>>
>> Simply copy and paste the following to a Web accessible location (URL)
>> and then share the URL via a response to this mail. If you can't then
>> simply let me know and I'll do that for you.
>>
>> ## Structured Data Representation using Turtle Notation ##
>>
>> <>
>> a <#Document> .
>> <#mentions> "Linked Data" , "Linked Data", "Semantic Web", "Inference
>> Reasoning", "Web".
>> <#comment> "A mailing list post about Linked Data and RDF".
>> <#seeAlso> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data><http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data>,
>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF>,
>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web><http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web>,
>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web><http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web>
>>
>> ## End ##
>>
>> What is the above to you?
>>
>> 1. Webby Structured Data -- constructable using basic knowledge of Entity
>> Relationship Models e.g. EAV (Entity-Attribute-Value based structured data
>> representation)
>> 2. RDF based Structured Data -- i.e., structured data endowed with
>> machine- and human-comprehensible entity relationship semantics as defined
>> by RDF (a framework).
>>
>> Related:
>>
>> 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity–attribute–value_model<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity%96attribute%96value_model>-- EAV
>> 2. http://bit.ly/YTdz3N - Peter Chen's circa. 1976 dissertation that
>> covers unified views of data (note: a simple example of these concepts that
>> even predate the World Wide Web).
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> Founder & CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/17/13 1:09 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
> What makes it RDF is that you can take the contents of this URL and
> stick it in any popular RDF parser and it will parse it for you.
>
> It's still bad quality Linked Data because it's missing mime-types.
> Anyway back to my initial question "How do you produce Linked Data
> without RDF?"

To cleanup this experiment, here's a URI/URL that denotes a version of
the file (note: there where some errors in the initial document e.g.
"." where I meant to have ";") on my server:

<http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test.ttl>
.

You can also just copy and past the content to your document to yours.

Back to the question and exercise, what's the defining characteristic
that makes either of our documents (denoted by their respective
URI/URLs) RDF documents, specifically? Here are some document type
options to select from:

1. Structured Data
2. Structured Data adhering to Linked Data principles
3. RDF based Structured Data adhering to Linked Data principles.


Note, I am not expecting Media Types to play any role in this experiment.

Kingsley
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Kingsley Idehen
> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>
> On 6/17/13 12:51 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>> Done: http://codepad.org/7REcSynR/raw.txt
>>
>> That's still RDF so I don't get your point.
>
> Really? How?
>
> curl -I http://codepad.org/7REcSynR/raw.txt
>
> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:57:10 GMT
> Server: Apache
> Pragma: no-cache
> Cache-Control: no-cache
> Content-Disposition: attachment
> Content-Length: 427
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
> What makes it RDF?
>
> Related:
>
> 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity–attribute–value_model
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity%E2%80%93attribute%E2%80%93value_model>
> -- EAV
> 2. http://bit.ly/YTdz3N - Peter Chen's circa. 1976 dissertation
> that covers unified views of data (note: a simple example of these
> concepts that even predate the World Wide Web).
>
> Kingsley
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Kingsley Idehen
>> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/17/13 11:02 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Kingsley Idehen
>>> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Linked Data is also something you can produce, without
>>> any knowledge of RDF.
>>>
>>>
>>> What do you mean "without any knowledge of RDF"? How do you
>>> produce Linked Data without RDF? Please give us an example
>>> before making statements on behalf of the community.
>> If you recall (earlier today) I presented you with a simple
>> exercise which would answer the question you've posed above,
>> demonstrably.
>>
>> Here's that I posted:
>>
>>
>> Webby Structured Data:
>>
>> Simply copy and paste the following to a Web accessible
>> location (URL) and then share the URL via a response to this
>> mail. If you can't then simply let me know and I'll do that
>> for you.
>>
>> ## Structured Data Representation using Turtle Notation ##
>>
>> <>
>> a <#Document> .
>> <#mentions> "Linked Data" , "Linked Data", "Semantic Web",
>> "Inference Reasoning", "Web".
>> <#comment> "A mailing list post about Linked Data and RDF".
>> <#seeAlso> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data>
>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data>,
>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF>
>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF>,
>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web>
>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web>,
>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web>
>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web>
>>
>> ## End ##
>>
>> What is the above to you?
>>
>> 1. Webby Structured Data -- constructable using basic
>> knowledge of Entity Relationship Models e.g. EAV
>> (Entity-Attribute-Value based structured data representation)
>> 2. RDF based Structured Data -- i.e., structured data endowed
>> with machine- and human-comprehensible entity relationship
>> semantics as defined by RDF (a framework).
>>
>> Related:
>>
>> 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity–attribute–value_model
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity%96attribute%96value_model>
>> -- EAV
>> 2. http://bit.ly/YTdz3N - Peter Chen's circa. 1976
>> dissertation that covers unified views of data (note: a
>> simple example of these concepts that even predate the World
>> Wide Web).
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> Founder & CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>> Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>
>


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Luca Matteis]

It's number 3 because it's RDF (Turtle) and it's using URIs to describe
things. And links to other data.

Can you make your point more clearly rather than answering my question with
other questions?


On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> On 6/17/13 1:09 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>
> What makes it RDF is that you can take the contents of this URL and stick
> it in any popular RDF parser and it will parse it for you.
>
> It's still bad quality Linked Data because it's missing mime-types.
> Anyway back to my initial question "How do you produce Linked Data
> without RDF?"
>
>
> To cleanup this experiment, here's a URI/URL that denotes a version of the
> file (note: there where some errors in the initial document e.g. "." where
> I meant to have ";") on my server:
>
>
> <http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test.ttl><http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test.ttl>.
>
> You can also just copy and past the content to your document to yours.
>
> Back to the question and exercise, what's the defining characteristic that
> makes either of our documents (denoted by their respective URI/URLs) RDF
> documents, specifically? Here are some document type options to select from:
>
> 1. Structured Data
> 2. Structured Data adhering to Linked Data principles
> 3. RDF based Structured Data adhering to Linked Data principles.
>
>
> Note, I am not expecting Media Types to play any role in this experiment.
>
> Kingsley
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
>
>> On 6/17/13 12:51 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>
>> Done: http://codepad.org/7REcSynR/raw.txt
>>
>> That's still RDF so I don't get your point.
>>
>>
>> Really? How?
>>
>> curl -I http://codepad.org/7REcSynR/raw.txt
>>
>> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:57:10 GMT
>> Server: Apache
>> Pragma: no-cache
>> Cache-Control: no-cache
>> Content-Disposition: attachment
>> Content-Length: 427
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>>
>>
>> What makes it RDF?
>>
>> Related:
>>
>> 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity–attribute–value_model -- EAV
>> 2. http://bit.ly/YTdz3N - Peter Chen's circa. 1976 dissertation that
>> covers unified views of data (note: a simple example of these concepts that
>> even predate the World Wide Web).
>>
>> Kingsley
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/17/13 11:02 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-***@public.gmane.orgm
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Linked Data is also something you can produce, without any knowledge of
>>>> RDF.
>>>
>>>
>>> What do you mean "without any knowledge of RDF"? How do you produce
>>> Linked Data without RDF? Please give us an example before making statements
>>> on behalf of the community.
>>>
>>> If you recall (earlier today) I presented you with a simple exercise
>>> which would answer the question you've posed above, demonstrably.
>>>
>>> Here's that I posted:
>>>
>>>
>>> Webby Structured Data:
>>>
>>> Simply copy and paste the following to a Web accessible location (URL)
>>> and then share the URL via a response to this mail. If you can't then
>>> simply let me know and I'll do that for you.
>>>
>>> ## Structured Data Representation using Turtle Notation ##
>>>
>>> <>
>>> a <#Document> .
>>> <#mentions> "Linked Data" , "Linked Data", "Semantic Web", "Inference
>>> Reasoning", "Web".
>>> <#comment> "A mailing list post about Linked Data and RDF".
>>> <#seeAlso> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data><http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data>,
>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF>,
>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web><http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web>,
>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web><http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web>
>>>
>>> ## End ##
>>>
>>> What is the above to you?
>>>
>>> 1. Webby Structured Data -- constructable using basic knowledge of
>>> Entity Relationship Models e.g. EAV (Entity-Attribute-Value based
>>> structured data representation)
>>> 2. RDF based Structured Data -- i.e., structured data endowed with
>>> machine- and human-comprehensible entity relationship semantics as defined
>>> by RDF (a framework).
>>>
>>> Related:
>>>
>>> 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity–attribute–value_model<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity%96attribute%96value_model>-- EAV
>>> 2. http://bit.ly/YTdz3N - Peter Chen's circa. 1976 dissertation that
>>> covers unified views of data (note: a simple example of these concepts that
>>> even predate the World Wide Web).
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Kingsley Idehen
>>> Founder & CEO
>>> OpenLink Software
>>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> Founder & CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/17/13 1:35 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
> It's number 3 because it's RDF (Turtle) and it's using URIs to
> describe things. And links to other data.
Let's put aside the Turtle assumption debate since it (like Media Type)
doesn't have any concrete bearing on this exercise.

How about the document denoted by this URI/URL:
<http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test2.ttl>


Is that an RDF document? If not, is it a Linked Data document? Or is it
neither?


Kingsley
>
> Can you make your point more clearly rather than answering my question
> with other questions?
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Kingsley Idehen
> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>
> On 6/17/13 1:09 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>> What makes it RDF is that you can take the contents of this URL
>> and stick it in any popular RDF parser and it will parse it for you.
>>
>> It's still bad quality Linked Data because it's missing
>> mime-types. Anyway back to my initial question "How do you
>> produce Linked Data without RDF?"
>
> To cleanup this experiment, here's a URI/URL that denotes a
> version of the file (note: there where some errors in the initial
> document e.g. "." where I meant to have ";") on my server:
>
> <http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test.ttl>
> <http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test.ttl>
> .
>
> You can also just copy and past the content to your document to
> yours.
>
> Back to the question and exercise, what's the defining
> characteristic that makes either of our documents (denoted by
> their respective URI/URLs) RDF documents, specifically? Here are
> some document type options to select from:
>
> 1. Structured Data
> 2. Structured Data adhering to Linked Data principles
> 3. RDF based Structured Data adhering to Linked Data principles.
>
>
> Note, I am not expecting Media Types to play any role in this
> experiment.
>
> Kingsley
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Kingsley Idehen
>> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/17/13 12:51 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>> Done: http://codepad.org/7REcSynR/raw.txt
>>>
>>> That's still RDF so I don't get your point.
>>
>> Really? How?
>>
>> curl -I http://codepad.org/7REcSynR/raw.txt
>>
>> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:57:10 GMT
>> Server: Apache
>> Pragma: no-cache
>> Cache-Control: no-cache
>> Content-Disposition: attachment
>> Content-Length: 427
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>>
>>
>> What makes it RDF?
>>
>> Related:
>>
>> 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity–attribute–value_model
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity%E2%80%93attribute%E2%80%93value_model>
>> -- EAV
>> 2. http://bit.ly/YTdz3N - Peter Chen's circa. 1976
>> dissertation that covers unified views of data (note: a
>> simple example of these concepts that even predate the World
>> Wide Web).
>>
>> Kingsley
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Kingsley Idehen
>>> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/17/13 11:02 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Kingsley Idehen
>>>> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org
>>>> <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Linked Data is also something you can produce,
>>>> without any knowledge of RDF.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean "without any knowledge of RDF"? How do
>>>> you produce Linked Data without RDF? Please give us an
>>>> example before making statements on behalf of the
>>>> community.
>>> If you recall (earlier today) I presented you with a
>>> simple exercise which would answer the question you've
>>> posed above, demonstrably.
>>>
>>> Here's that I posted:
>>>
>>>
>>> Webby Structured Data:
>>>
>>> Simply copy and paste the following to a Web accessible
>>> location (URL) and then share the URL via a response to
>>> this mail. If you can't then simply let me know and I'll
>>> do that for you.
>>>
>>> ## Structured Data Representation using Turtle Notation ##
>>>
>>> <>
>>> a <#Document> .
>>> <#mentions> "Linked Data" , "Linked Data", "Semantic
>>> Web", "Inference Reasoning", "Web".
>>> <#comment> "A mailing list post about Linked Data and RDF".
>>> <#seeAlso> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data>
>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data>,
>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF>
>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF>,
>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web>
>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web>,
>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web>
>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web>
>>>
>>> ## End ##
>>>
>>> What is the above to you?
>>>
>>> 1. Webby Structured Data -- constructable using basic
>>> knowledge of Entity Relationship Models e.g. EAV
>>> (Entity-Attribute-Value based structured data
>>> representation)
>>> 2. RDF based Structured Data -- i.e., structured data
>>> endowed with machine- and human-comprehensible entity
>>> relationship semantics as defined by RDF (a framework).
>>>
>>> Related:
>>>
>>> 1.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity–attribute–value_model <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity%96attribute%96value_model>
>>> -- EAV
>>> 2. http://bit.ly/YTdz3N - Peter Chen's circa. 1976
>>> dissertation that covers unified views of data (note: a
>>> simple example of these concepts that even predate the
>>> World Wide Web).
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Kingsley Idehen
>>> Founder & CEO
>>> OpenLink Software
>>> Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com
>>> Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
>>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>>> Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>>> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> Founder & CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>> Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>
>


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[David Wood]

Nicely done, Kingsley! That is an excellent exploration of the boundaries.

Yes, it is RDF (of course), but crappy RDF since the predicates are hardly likely to be reused by others or even mapped via owl:sameAs.

Yes, it is Linked Data, but crappy Linked Data because it doesn't link out to anything. The bogus Content-Type is something we have (almost) all learned to live with.

Crappy != broken, but it is still crappy ;-)

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood



On Jun 17, 2013, at 14:17, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On 6/17/13 1:35 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>> It's number 3 because it's RDF (Turtle) and it's using URIs to describe things. And links to other data.
> Let's put aside the Turtle assumption debate since it (like Media Type) doesn't have any concrete bearing on this exercise.
>
> How about the document denoted by this URI/URL: <http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test2.ttl>
>
> Is that an RDF document? If not, is it a Linked Data document? Or is it neither?
>
>
> Kingsley
>>
>> Can you make your point more clearly rather than answering my question with other questions?
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> On 6/17/13 1:09 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>> What makes it RDF is that you can take the contents of this URL and stick it in any popular RDF parser and it will parse it for you.
>>>
>>> It's still bad quality Linked Data because it's missing mime-types. Anyway back to my initial question "How do you produce Linked Data without RDF?"
>>
>> To cleanup this experiment, here's a URI/URL that denotes a version of the file (note: there where some errors in the initial document e.g. "." where I meant to have ";") on my server:
>>
>> <http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test.ttl> .
>>
>> You can also just copy and past the content to your document to yours.
>>
>> Back to the question and exercise, what's the defining characteristic that makes either of our documents (denoted by their respective URI/URLs) RDF documents, specifically? Here are some document type options to select from:
>>
>> 1. Structured Data
>> 2. Structured Data adhering to Linked Data principles
>> 3. RDF based Structured Data adhering to Linked Data principles.
>>
>>
>> Note, I am not expecting Media Types to play any role in this experiment.
>>
>> Kingsley
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> On 6/17/13 12:51 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>>> Done: http://codepad.org/7REcSynR/raw.txt
>>>>
>>>> That's still RDF so I don't get your point.
>>>
>>> Really? How?
>>>
>>> curl -I http://codepad.org/7REcSynR/raw.txt
>>>
>>> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>>> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:57:10 GMT
>>> Server: Apache
>>> Pragma: no-cache
>>> Cache-Control: no-cache
>>> Content-Disposition: attachment
>>> Content-Length: 427
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>>>
>>>
>>> What makes it RDF?
>>>
>>> Related:
>>>
>>> 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity–attribute–value_model -- EAV
>>> 2. http://bit.ly/YTdz3N - Peter Chen's circa. 1976 dissertation that covers unified views of data (note: a simple example of these concepts that even predate the World Wide Web).
>>>
>>> Kingsley
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>> On 6/17/13 11:02 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>>> Linked Data is also something you can produce, without any knowledge of RDF.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean "without any knowledge of RDF"? How do you produce Linked Data without RDF? Please give us an example before making statements on behalf of the community.
>>>> If you recall (earlier today) I presented you with a simple exercise which would answer the question you've posed above, demonstrably.
>>>>
>>>> Here's that I posted:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Webby Structured Data:
>>>>
>>>> Simply copy and paste the following to a Web accessible location (URL) and then share the URL via a response to this mail. If you can't then simply let me know and I'll do that for you.
>>>>
>>>> ## Structured Data Representation using Turtle Notation ##
>>>>
>>>> <>
>>>> a <#Document> .
>>>> <#mentions> "Linked Data" , "Linked Data", "Semantic Web", "Inference Reasoning", "Web".
>>>> <#comment> "A mailing list post about Linked Data and RDF".
>>>> <#seeAlso> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data>, <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF>, <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web>, <http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web>
>>>>
>>>> ## End ##
>>>>
>>>> What is the above to you?
>>>>
>>>> 1. Webby Structured Data -- constructable using basic knowledge of Entity Relationship Models e.g. EAV (Entity-Attribute-Value based structured data representation)
>>>> 2. RDF based Structured Data -- i.e., structured data endowed with machine- and human-comprehensible entity relationship semantics as defined by RDF (a framework).
>>>>
>>>> Related:
>>>>
>>>> 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity–attribute–value_model -- EAV
>>>> 2. http://bit.ly/YTdz3N - Peter Chen's circa. 1976 dissertation that covers unified views of data (note: a simple example of these concepts that even predate the World Wide Web).
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Kingsley Idehen
>>>> Founder & CEO
>>>> OpenLink Software
>>>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>>>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>>>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>>>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>>>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Kingsley Idehen
>>> Founder & CEO
>>> OpenLink Software
>>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> Founder & CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/17/13 5:26 PM, David Wood wrote:
> Nicely done, Kingsley! That is an excellent exploration of the
> boundaries.
>
> Yes, it is RDF (of course), but crappy RDF since the predicates are
> hardly likely to be reused by others or even mapped via owl:sameAs.
>
> Yes, it is Linked Data, but crappy Linked Data because it doesn't link
> out to anything. The bogus Content-Type is something we have (almost)
> all learned to live with.
>
> Crappy != broken, but it is still crappy ;-)

Amen!

Kingsley
>
> Regards,
> Dave
> --
> http://about.me/david_wood
>
>
>
> On Jun 17, 2013, at 14:17, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org
> <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>
>> On 6/17/13 1:35 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>> It's number 3 because it's RDF (Turtle) and it's using URIs to
>>> describe things. And links to other data.
>> Let's put aside the Turtle assumption debate since it (like Media
>> Type) doesn't have any concrete bearing on this exercise.
>>
>> How about the document denoted by this URI/URL:
>> <http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test2.ttl>
>>
>>
>> Is that an RDF document? If not, is it a Linked Data document? Or is
>> it neither?
>>
>>
>> Kingsley
>>>
>>> Can you make your point more clearly rather than answering my
>>> question with other questions?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Kingsley Idehen
>>> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/17/13 1:09 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>>> What makes it RDF is that you can take the contents of this URL
>>>> and stick it in any popular RDF parser and it will parse it for
>>>> you.
>>>>
>>>> It's still bad quality Linked Data because it's missing
>>>> mime-types. Anyway back to my initial question "How do you
>>>> produce Linked Data without RDF?"
>>>
>>> To cleanup this experiment, here's a URI/URL that denotes a
>>> version of the file (note: there where some errors in the
>>> initial document e.g. "." where I meant to have ";") on my server:
>>>
>>> <http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test.ttl>
>>> <http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test.ttl>
>>> .
>>>
>>> You can also just copy and past the content to your document to
>>> yours.
>>>
>>> Back to the question and exercise, what's the defining
>>> characteristic that makes either of our documents (denoted by
>>> their respective URI/URLs) RDF documents, specifically? Here are
>>> some document type options to select from:
>>>
>>> 1. Structured Data
>>> 2. Structured Data adhering to Linked Data principles
>>> 3. RDF based Structured Data adhering to Linked Data principles.
>>>
>>>
>>> Note, I am not expecting Media Types to play any role in this
>>> experiment.
>>>
>>> Kingsley
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Kingsley Idehen
>>>> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 6/17/13 12:51 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>>>> Done: http://codepad.org/7REcSynR/raw.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> That's still RDF so I don't get your point.
>>>>
>>>> Really? How?
>>>>
>>>> curl -I http://codepad.org/7REcSynR/raw.txt
>>>>
>>>> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>>>> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:57:10 GMT
>>>> Server: Apache
>>>> Pragma: no-cache
>>>> Cache-Control: no-cache
>>>> Content-Disposition: attachment
>>>> Content-Length: 427
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What makes it RDF?
>>>>
>>>> Related:
>>>>
>>>> 1.
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity–attribute–value_model
>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity%E2%80%93attribute%E2%80%93value_model>
>>>> -- EAV
>>>> 2. http://bit.ly/YTdz3N - Peter Chen's circa. 1976
>>>> dissertation that covers unified views of data (note: a
>>>> simple example of these concepts that even predate the
>>>> World Wide Web).
>>>>
>>>> Kingsley
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Kingsley Idehen
>>>>> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/17/13 11:02 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Kingsley Idehen
>>>>>> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org
>>>>>> <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linked Data is also something you can produce,
>>>>>> without any knowledge of RDF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you mean "without any knowledge of RDF"? How
>>>>>> do you produce Linked Data without RDF? Please give
>>>>>> us an example before making statements on behalf of
>>>>>> the community.
>>>>> If you recall (earlier today) I presented you with a
>>>>> simple exercise which would answer the question you've
>>>>> posed above, demonstrably.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's that I posted:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Webby Structured Data:
>>>>>
>>>>> Simply copy and paste the following to a Web
>>>>> accessible location (URL) and then share the URL via a
>>>>> response to this mail. If you can't then simply let me
>>>>> know and I'll do that for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> ## Structured Data Representation using Turtle Notation ##
>>>>>
>>>>> <>
>>>>> a <#Document> .
>>>>> <#mentions> "Linked Data" , "Linked Data", "Semantic
>>>>> Web", "Inference Reasoning", "Web".
>>>>> <#comment> "A mailing list post about Linked Data and
>>>>> RDF".
>>>>> <#seeAlso> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data>
>>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data>,
>>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF>
>>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF>,
>>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web>
>>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web>,
>>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web>
>>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web>
>>>>>
>>>>> ## End ##
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the above to you?
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Webby Structured Data -- constructable using basic
>>>>> knowledge of Entity Relationship Models e.g. EAV
>>>>> (Entity-Attribute-Value based structured data
>>>>> representation)
>>>>> 2. RDF based Structured Data -- i.e., structured data
>>>>> endowed with machine- and human-comprehensible entity
>>>>> relationship semantics as defined by RDF (a framework).
>>>>>
>>>>> Related:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity–attribute–value_model
>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity%96attribute%96value_model>
>>>>> -- EAV
>>>>> 2. http://bit.ly/YTdz3N - Peter Chen's circa. 1976
>>>>> dissertation that covers unified views of data (note:
>>>>> a simple example of these concepts that even predate
>>>>> the World Wide Web).
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Kingsley Idehen
>>>>> Founder & CEO
>>>>> OpenLink Software
>>>>> Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com <http://www.openlinksw.com/>
>>>>> Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
>>>>> Twitter/Identi.ca <http://Identi.ca> handle: @kidehen
>>>>> Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>>>>> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Kingsley Idehen
>>>> Founder & CEO
>>>> OpenLink Software
>>>> Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com <http://www.openlinksw.com/>
>>>> Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
>>>> Twitter/Identi.ca <http://Identi.ca> handle: @kidehen
>>>> Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>>>> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Kingsley Idehen
>>> Founder & CEO
>>> OpenLink Software
>>> Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com <http://www.openlinksw.com/>
>>> Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
>>> Twitter/Identi.ca <http://Identi.ca> handle: @kidehen
>>> Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>>> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> Founder & CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter/Identi.ca <http://Identi.ca> handle: @kidehen
>> Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Melvin Carvalho]

On 17 June 2013 23:26, David Wood <david-9lQWNqMQ+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Nicely done, Kingsley! That is an excellent exploration of the boundaries.
>
> Yes, it is RDF (of course), but crappy RDF since the predicates are hardly
> likely to be reused by others or even mapped via owl:sameAs.
>
> Yes, it is Linked Data, but crappy Linked Data because it doesn't link out
> to anything. The bogus Content-Type is something we have (almost) all
> learned to live with.
>
> Crappy != broken, but it is still crappy ;-)
>

+1


>
> Regards,
> Dave
> --
> http://about.me/david_wood
>
>
>
> On Jun 17, 2013, at 14:17, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> On 6/17/13 1:35 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>
> It's number 3 because it's RDF (Turtle) and it's using URIs to describe
> things. And links to other data.
>
> Let's put aside the Turtle assumption debate since it (like Media Type)
> doesn't have any concrete bearing on this exercise.
>
> How about the document denoted by this URI/URL:
> <http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test2.ttl><http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test2.ttl>
>
> Is that an RDF document? If not, is it a Linked Data document? Or is it
> neither?
>
>
> Kingsley
>
>
> Can you make your point more clearly rather than answering my question
> with other questions?
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
>
>> On 6/17/13 1:09 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>
>> What makes it RDF is that you can take the contents of this URL and stick
>> it in any popular RDF parser and it will parse it for you.
>>
>> It's still bad quality Linked Data because it's missing mime-types.
>> Anyway back to my initial question "How do you produce Linked Data
>> without RDF?"
>>
>>
>> To cleanup this experiment, here's a URI/URL that denotes a version of
>> the file (note: there where some errors in the initial document e.g. "."
>> where I meant to have ";") on my server:
>>
>>
>> <http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test.ttl><http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test.ttl>.
>>
>> You can also just copy and past the content to your document to yours.
>>
>> Back to the question and exercise, what's the defining characteristic
>> that makes either of our documents (denoted by their respective URI/URLs)
>> RDF documents, specifically? Here are some document type options to select
>> from:
>>
>> 1. Structured Data
>> 2. Structured Data adhering to Linked Data principles
>> 3. RDF based Structured Data adhering to Linked Data principles.
>>
>>
>> Note, I am not expecting Media Types to play any role in this experiment.
>>
>> Kingsley
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/17/13 12:51 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>>
>>> Done: http://codepad.org/7REcSynR/raw.txt
>>>
>>> That's still RDF so I don't get your point.
>>>
>>>
>>> Really? How?
>>>
>>> curl -I http://codepad.org/7REcSynR/raw.txt
>>>
>>> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>>> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:57:10 GMT
>>> Server: Apache
>>> Pragma: no-cache
>>> Cache-Control: no-cache
>>> Content-Disposition: attachment
>>> Content-Length: 427
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>>>
>>>
>>> What makes it RDF?
>>>
>>> Related:
>>>
>>> 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity–attribute–value_model -- EAV
>>> 2. http://bit.ly/YTdz3N - Peter Chen's circa. 1976 dissertation that
>>> covers unified views of data (note: a simple example of these concepts that
>>> even predate the World Wide Web).
>>>
>>> Kingsley
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-***@public.gmane.orgm
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/17/13 11:02 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Kingsley Idehen <
>>>> kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Linked Data is also something you can produce, without any knowledge
>>>>> of RDF.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean "without any knowledge of RDF"? How do you produce
>>>> Linked Data without RDF? Please give us an example before making statements
>>>> on behalf of the community.
>>>>
>>>> If you recall (earlier today) I presented you with a simple exercise
>>>> which would answer the question you've posed above, demonstrably.
>>>>
>>>> Here's that I posted:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Webby Structured Data:
>>>>
>>>> Simply copy and paste the following to a Web accessible location (URL)
>>>> and then share the URL via a response to this mail. If you can't then
>>>> simply let me know and I'll do that for you.
>>>>
>>>> ## Structured Data Representation using Turtle Notation ##
>>>>
>>>> <>
>>>> a <#Document> .
>>>> <#mentions> "Linked Data" , "Linked Data", "Semantic Web", "Inference
>>>> Reasoning", "Web".
>>>> <#comment> "A mailing list post about Linked Data and RDF".
>>>> <#seeAlso> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data><http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data>,
>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF>,
>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web><http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web>,
>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web><http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web>
>>>>
>>>> ## End ##
>>>>
>>>> What is the above to you?
>>>>
>>>> 1. Webby Structured Data -- constructable using basic knowledge of
>>>> Entity Relationship Models e.g. EAV (Entity-Attribute-Value based
>>>> structured data representation)
>>>> 2. RDF based Structured Data -- i.e., structured data endowed with
>>>> machine- and human-comprehensible entity relationship semantics as defined
>>>> by RDF (a framework).
>>>>
>>>> Related:
>>>>
>>>> 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity–attribute–value_model<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity%96attribute%96value_model>-- EAV
>>>> 2. http://bit.ly/YTdz3N - Peter Chen's circa. 1976 dissertation that
>>>> covers unified views of data (note: a simple example of these concepts that
>>>> even predate the World Wide Web).
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Kingsley Idehen
>>>> Founder & CEO
>>>> OpenLink Software
>>>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>>>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>>>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>>>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>>>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Kingsley Idehen
>>> Founder & CEO
>>> OpenLink Software
>>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> Founder & CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>
>

[Luca Matteis]

This still doesn't answer my initial question "How do you produce Linked
Data without RDF?".
At this point I'm going with other members of the community stating that
you're simply avoiding the evidence. The evidence shows that indeed you
need RDF to produce Linked Data. So RDF is strictly needed in order to
produce Linked Data.


On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

>
>
>
> On 17 June 2013 23:26, David Wood <david-9lQWNqMQ+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>> Nicely done, Kingsley! That is an excellent exploration of the
>> boundaries.
>>
>> Yes, it is RDF (of course), but crappy RDF since the predicates are
>> hardly likely to be reused by others or even mapped via owl:sameAs.
>>
>> Yes, it is Linked Data, but crappy Linked Data because it doesn't link
>> out to anything. The bogus Content-Type is something we have (almost) all
>> learned to live with.
>>
>> Crappy != broken, but it is still crappy ;-)
>>
>
> +1
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> --
>> http://about.me/david_wood
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 17, 2013, at 14:17, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/17/13 1:35 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>
>> It's number 3 because it's RDF (Turtle) and it's using URIs to describe
>> things. And links to other data.
>>
>> Let's put aside the Turtle assumption debate since it (like Media Type)
>> doesn't have any concrete bearing on this exercise.
>>
>> How about the document denoted by this URI/URL:
>> <http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test2.ttl><http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test2.ttl>
>>
>> Is that an RDF document? If not, is it a Linked Data document? Or is it
>> neither?
>>
>>
>> Kingsley
>>
>>
>> Can you make your point more clearly rather than answering my question
>> with other questions?
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/17/13 1:09 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>>
>>> What makes it RDF is that you can take the contents of this URL and
>>> stick it in any popular RDF parser and it will parse it for you.
>>>
>>> It's still bad quality Linked Data because it's missing mime-types.
>>> Anyway back to my initial question "How do you produce Linked Data
>>> without RDF?"
>>>
>>>
>>> To cleanup this experiment, here's a URI/URL that denotes a version of
>>> the file (note: there where some errors in the initial document e.g. "."
>>> where I meant to have ";") on my server:
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test.ttl><http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test.ttl>.
>>>
>>> You can also just copy and past the content to your document to yours.
>>>
>>> Back to the question and exercise, what's the defining characteristic
>>> that makes either of our documents (denoted by their respective URI/URLs)
>>> RDF documents, specifically? Here are some document type options to select
>>> from:
>>>
>>> 1. Structured Data
>>> 2. Structured Data adhering to Linked Data principles
>>> 3. RDF based Structured Data adhering to Linked Data principles.
>>>
>>>
>>> Note, I am not expecting Media Types to play any role in this
>>> experiment.
>>>
>>> Kingsley
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-***@public.gmane.orgm
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/17/13 12:51 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Done: http://codepad.org/7REcSynR/raw.txt
>>>>
>>>> That's still RDF so I don't get your point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really? How?
>>>>
>>>> curl -I http://codepad.org/7REcSynR/raw.txt
>>>>
>>>> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>>>> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:57:10 GMT
>>>> Server: Apache
>>>> Pragma: no-cache
>>>> Cache-Control: no-cache
>>>> Content-Disposition: attachment
>>>> Content-Length: 427
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What makes it RDF?
>>>>
>>>> Related:
>>>>
>>>> 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity–attribute–value_model -- EAV
>>>> 2. http://bit.ly/YTdz3N - Peter Chen's circa. 1976 dissertation that
>>>> covers unified views of data (note: a simple example of these concepts that
>>>> even predate the World Wide Web).
>>>>
>>>> Kingsley
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Kingsley Idehen <
>>>> kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/17/13 11:02 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Kingsley Idehen <
>>>>> kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Linked Data is also something you can produce, without any knowledge
>>>>>> of RDF.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean "without any knowledge of RDF"? How do you produce
>>>>> Linked Data without RDF? Please give us an example before making statements
>>>>> on behalf of the community.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you recall (earlier today) I presented you with a simple exercise
>>>>> which would answer the question you've posed above, demonstrably.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's that I posted:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Webby Structured Data:
>>>>>
>>>>> Simply copy and paste the following to a Web accessible location (URL)
>>>>> and then share the URL via a response to this mail. If you can't then
>>>>> simply let me know and I'll do that for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> ## Structured Data Representation using Turtle Notation ##
>>>>>
>>>>> <>
>>>>> a <#Document> .
>>>>> <#mentions> "Linked Data" , "Linked Data", "Semantic Web", "Inference
>>>>> Reasoning", "Web".
>>>>> <#comment> "A mailing list post about Linked Data and RDF".
>>>>> <#seeAlso> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data><http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data>,
>>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF>,
>>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web><http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web>,
>>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web><http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web>
>>>>>
>>>>> ## End ##
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the above to you?
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Webby Structured Data -- constructable using basic knowledge of
>>>>> Entity Relationship Models e.g. EAV (Entity-Attribute-Value based
>>>>> structured data representation)
>>>>> 2. RDF based Structured Data -- i.e., structured data endowed with
>>>>> machine- and human-comprehensible entity relationship semantics as defined
>>>>> by RDF (a framework).
>>>>>
>>>>> Related:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity–attribute–value_model<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity%96attribute%96value_model>-- EAV
>>>>> 2. http://bit.ly/YTdz3N - Peter Chen's circa. 1976 dissertation that
>>>>> covers unified views of data (note: a simple example of these concepts that
>>>>> even predate the World Wide Web).
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Kingsley Idehen
>>>>> Founder & CEO
>>>>> OpenLink Software
>>>>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>>>>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>>>>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>>>>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>>>>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Kingsley Idehen
>>>> Founder & CEO
>>>> OpenLink Software
>>>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>>>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>>>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>>>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>>>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Kingsley Idehen
>>> Founder & CEO
>>> OpenLink Software
>>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> Founder & CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[Melvin Carvalho]

On 18 June 2013 00:21, Luca Matteis <lmatteis-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> This still doesn't answer my initial question "How do you produce Linked
> Data without RDF?".
> At this point I'm going with other members of the community stating that
> you're simply avoiding the evidence. The evidence shows that indeed you
> need RDF to produce Linked Data. So RDF is strictly needed in order to
> produce Linked Data.
>

An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician (it is said) were holidaying
in Scotland. Glancing from a train window, they observed a black sheep in
the middle of a field.
"How interesting," observed the astronomer, "all scottish sheep are
black!"
To which the physicist responded, "No, no! Some Scottish sheep are black!"
The mathematician gazed heavenward in supplication, and then intoned, "In
Scotland there exists at least one field, containing at least one sheep, at
least one side of which is black."


>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Melvin Carvalho <
> melvincarvalho-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 17 June 2013 23:26, David Wood <david-9lQWNqMQ+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Nicely done, Kingsley! That is an excellent exploration of the
>>> boundaries.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is RDF (of course), but crappy RDF since the predicates are
>>> hardly likely to be reused by others or even mapped via owl:sameAs.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is Linked Data, but crappy Linked Data because it doesn't link
>>> out to anything. The bogus Content-Type is something we have (almost) all
>>> learned to live with.
>>>
>>> Crappy != broken, but it is still crappy ;-)
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>> --
>>> http://about.me/david_wood
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 17, 2013, at 14:17, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/17/13 1:35 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>>
>>> It's number 3 because it's RDF (Turtle) and it's using URIs to describe
>>> things. And links to other data.
>>>
>>> Let's put aside the Turtle assumption debate since it (like Media Type)
>>> doesn't have any concrete bearing on this exercise.
>>>
>>> How about the document denoted by this URI/URL:
>>> <http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test2.ttl><http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test2.ttl>
>>>
>>> Is that an RDF document? If not, is it a Linked Data document? Or is it
>>> neither?
>>>
>>>
>>> Kingsley
>>>
>>>
>>> Can you make your point more clearly rather than answering my question
>>> with other questions?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-***@public.gmane.orgm
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/17/13 1:09 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What makes it RDF is that you can take the contents of this URL and
>>>> stick it in any popular RDF parser and it will parse it for you.
>>>>
>>>> It's still bad quality Linked Data because it's missing mime-types.
>>>> Anyway back to my initial question "How do you produce Linked Data
>>>> without RDF?"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To cleanup this experiment, here's a URI/URL that denotes a version of
>>>> the file (note: there where some errors in the initial document e.g. "."
>>>> where I meant to have ";") on my server:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test.ttl><http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test.ttl>.
>>>>
>>>> You can also just copy and past the content to your document to yours.
>>>>
>>>> Back to the question and exercise, what's the defining characteristic
>>>> that makes either of our documents (denoted by their respective URI/URLs)
>>>> RDF documents, specifically? Here are some document type options to select
>>>> from:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Structured Data
>>>> 2. Structured Data adhering to Linked Data principles
>>>> 3. RDF based Structured Data adhering to Linked Data principles.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note, I am not expecting Media Types to play any role in this
>>>> experiment.
>>>>
>>>> Kingsley
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Kingsley Idehen <
>>>> kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/17/13 12:51 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Done: http://codepad.org/7REcSynR/raw.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> That's still RDF so I don't get your point.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? How?
>>>>>
>>>>> curl -I http://codepad.org/7REcSynR/raw.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>>>>> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:57:10 GMT
>>>>> Server: Apache
>>>>> Pragma: no-cache
>>>>> Cache-Control: no-cache
>>>>> Content-Disposition: attachment
>>>>> Content-Length: 427
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What makes it RDF?
>>>>>
>>>>> Related:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity–attribute–value_model -- EAV
>>>>> 2. http://bit.ly/YTdz3N - Peter Chen's circa. 1976 dissertation that
>>>>> covers unified views of data (note: a simple example of these concepts that
>>>>> even predate the World Wide Web).
>>>>>
>>>>> Kingsley
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Kingsley Idehen <
>>>>> kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/17/13 11:02 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Kingsley Idehen <
>>>>>> kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Linked Data is also something you can produce, without any knowledge
>>>>>>> of RDF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you mean "without any knowledge of RDF"? How do you produce
>>>>>> Linked Data without RDF? Please give us an example before making statements
>>>>>> on behalf of the community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you recall (earlier today) I presented you with a simple
>>>>>> exercise which would answer the question you've posed above, demonstrably.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's that I posted:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Webby Structured Data:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simply copy and paste the following to a Web accessible location
>>>>>> (URL) and then share the URL via a response to this mail. If you can't then
>>>>>> simply let me know and I'll do that for you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ## Structured Data Representation using Turtle Notation ##
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <>
>>>>>> a <#Document> .
>>>>>> <#mentions> "Linked Data" , "Linked Data", "Semantic Web", "Inference
>>>>>> Reasoning", "Web".
>>>>>> <#comment> "A mailing list post about Linked Data and RDF".
>>>>>> <#seeAlso> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data><http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data>,
>>>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF>,
>>>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web><http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web>,
>>>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web><http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ## End ##
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the above to you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Webby Structured Data -- constructable using basic knowledge of
>>>>>> Entity Relationship Models e.g. EAV (Entity-Attribute-Value based
>>>>>> structured data representation)
>>>>>> 2. RDF based Structured Data -- i.e., structured data endowed with
>>>>>> machine- and human-comprehensible entity relationship semantics as defined
>>>>>> by RDF (a framework).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Related:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity–attribute–value_model<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity%96attribute%96value_model>-- EAV
>>>>>> 2. http://bit.ly/YTdz3N - Peter Chen's circa. 1976 dissertation that
>>>>>> covers unified views of data (note: a simple example of these concepts that
>>>>>> even predate the World Wide Web).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kingsley Idehen
>>>>>> Founder & CEO
>>>>>> OpenLink Software
>>>>>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>>>>>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>>>>>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>>>>>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>>>>>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Kingsley Idehen
>>>>> Founder & CEO
>>>>> OpenLink Software
>>>>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>>>>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>>>>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>>>>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>>>>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Kingsley Idehen
>>>> Founder & CEO
>>>> OpenLink Software
>>>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>>>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>>>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>>>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>>>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Kingsley Idehen
>>> Founder & CEO
>>> OpenLink Software
>>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/17/13 5:58 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
> Yes, it is Linked Data, but crappy Linked Data because it doesn't link
> out to anything.
David / Melvin,

To be clearer (on my part), there are some links to other things (via
seeAlso relation). Basically, those seeAlso links are in line with any
version of TimBL's Linked Data principles meme. The prime limitation
demonstrated by the current incarnation of this Linked Data boils down
to the granularity of seeAlso relations which carry no more semantic
clarity than say <link rel="related" ../> i.e., there is a links_to
(like sioc:links_to) relation that associates the document with some
concepts in DBpedia.

As this demo evolves, the full impact (and usefulness) of RDF is very
easy to demonstrate, which (as you picked up) boils down to the use of
terms from shared vocabularies en route to leveraging relation semantics
they define such as owl:sameAs, inverseFunctional property (IFP) etc..

Some links (based on the crappy-ish sample Linked Data doc):

1.
<http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/html/http/kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test2.ttl>
-- raw text document

2.
<http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/html/http/kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test2.ttl>
-- Linked Data browsing page (shallow follow-your-nose)

3.
<http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fkingsley.idehen.net%2FDAV%2Fhome%2Fkidehen%2FPublic%2FDropBox%2FPublic%2FLinked%2520Data%2520Resources%2Flinked-data-rdf-test2.ttl>
-- deeper follow-your-nose exploration via facets/relations filtering .



--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/17/13 6:21 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
> This still doesn't answer my initial question "How do you produce
> Linked Data without RDF?".

What makes you conclude that
<http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test2.ttl>
is a document bearing RDF content? How have you arrived at that conclusion?

> At this point I'm going with other members of the community stating
> that you're simply avoiding the evidence. The evidence shows that
> indeed you need RDF to produce Linked Data. So RDF is strictly needed
> in order to produce Linked Data.

Cognitive Dissonance is not going to get you out of this one.

What makes
<http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test2.ttl>
an RDF document, specifically. I am sure you know that RDF did not
invent the Triple! Neither did it invent the References as Identifiers.

My document has:

1. HTTP URIs
2. HTTP URIs with and without fragment identifiers
3. 3-tuple (triple) statements.

Nothing above is unique to RDF. Not a single thing !!

My document is 100% compatible with any version of TimBL's Linked Data
memes.

Kingsley
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Melvin Carvalho
> <melvincarvalho-***@public.gmane.org <mailto:melvincarvalho-***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 17 June 2013 23:26, David Wood <david-9lQWNqMQ+***@public.gmane.org
> <mailto:david-9lQWNqMQ+***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>
> Nicely done, Kingsley! That is an excellent exploration of
> the boundaries.
>
> Yes, it is RDF (of course), but crappy RDF since the
> predicates are hardly likely to be reused by others or even
> mapped via owl:sameAs.
>
> Yes, it is Linked Data, but crappy Linked Data because it
> doesn't link out to anything. The bogus Content-Type is
> something we have (almost) all learned to live with.
>
> Crappy != broken, but it is still crappy ;-)
>
>
> +1
>
>
> Regards,
> Dave
> --
> http://about.me/david_wood
>
>
>
> On Jun 17, 2013, at 14:17, Kingsley Idehen
> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>
>> On 6/17/13 1:35 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>> It's number 3 because it's RDF (Turtle) and it's using URIs
>>> to describe things. And links to other data.
>> Let's put aside the Turtle assumption debate since it (like
>> Media Type) doesn't have any concrete bearing on this exercise.
>>
>> How about the document denoted by this URI/URL:
>> <http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test2.ttl>
>> <http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test2.ttl>
>>
>>
>> Is that an RDF document? If not, is it a Linked Data
>> document? Or is it neither?
>>
>>
>> Kingsley
>>>
>>> Can you make your point more clearly rather than answering
>>> my question with other questions?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Kingsley Idehen
>>> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/17/13 1:09 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>>> What makes it RDF is that you can take the contents of
>>>> this URL and stick it in any popular RDF parser and it
>>>> will parse it for you.
>>>>
>>>> It's still bad quality Linked Data because it's missing
>>>> mime-types. Anyway back to my initial question "How do
>>>> you produce Linked Data without RDF?"
>>>
>>> To cleanup this experiment, here's a URI/URL that
>>> denotes a version of the file (note: there where some
>>> errors in the initial document e.g. "." where I meant
>>> to have ";") on my server:
>>>
>>> <http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test.ttl>
>>> <http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test.ttl>
>>> .
>>>
>>> You can also just copy and past the content to your
>>> document to yours.
>>>
>>> Back to the question and exercise, what's the defining
>>> characteristic that makes either of our documents
>>> (denoted by their respective URI/URLs) RDF documents,
>>> specifically? Here are some document type options to
>>> select from:
>>>
>>> 1. Structured Data
>>> 2. Structured Data adhering to Linked Data principles
>>> 3. RDF based Structured Data adhering to Linked Data
>>> principles.
>>>
>>>
>>> Note, I am not expecting Media Types to play any role in
>>> this experiment.
>>>
>>> Kingsley
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Kingsley Idehen
>>>> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org
>>>> <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 6/17/13 12:51 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>>>> Done: http://codepad.org/7REcSynR/raw.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> That's still RDF so I don't get your point.
>>>>
>>>> Really? How?
>>>>
>>>> curl -I http://codepad.org/7REcSynR/raw.txt
>>>>
>>>> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>>>> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:57:10 GMT
>>>> Server: Apache
>>>> Pragma: no-cache
>>>> Cache-Control: no-cache
>>>> Content-Disposition: attachment
>>>> Content-Length: 427
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What makes it RDF?
>>>>
>>>> Related:
>>>>
>>>> 1.
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity–attribute–value_model
>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity%E2%80%93attribute%E2%80%93value_model>
>>>> -- EAV
>>>> 2. http://bit.ly/YTdz3N - Peter Chen's circa. 1976
>>>> dissertation that covers unified views of data
>>>> (note: a simple example of these concepts that even
>>>> predate the World Wide Web).
>>>>
>>>> Kingsley
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Kingsley Idehen
>>>>> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org
>>>>> <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/17/13 11:02 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Kingsley
>>>>>> Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org
>>>>>> <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linked Data is also something you can
>>>>>> produce, without any knowledge of RDF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you mean "without any knowledge of
>>>>>> RDF"? How do you produce Linked Data without
>>>>>> RDF? Please give us an example before making
>>>>>> statements on behalf of the community.
>>>>> If you recall (earlier today) I presented you
>>>>> with a simple exercise which would answer the
>>>>> question you've posed above, demonstrably.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's that I posted:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Webby Structured Data:
>>>>>
>>>>> Simply copy and paste the following to a Web
>>>>> accessible location (URL) and then share the
>>>>> URL via a response to this mail. If you can't
>>>>> then simply let me know and I'll do that for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> ## Structured Data Representation using Turtle
>>>>> Notation ##
>>>>>
>>>>> <>
>>>>> a <#Document> .
>>>>> <#mentions> "Linked Data" , "Linked Data",
>>>>> "Semantic Web", "Inference Reasoning", "Web".
>>>>> <#comment> "A mailing list post about Linked
>>>>> Data and RDF".
>>>>> <#seeAlso>
>>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data>
>>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data>,
>>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF>
>>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF>,
>>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web>
>>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web>,
>>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web>
>>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web>
>>>>>
>>>>> ## End ##
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the above to you?
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Webby Structured Data -- constructable
>>>>> using basic knowledge of Entity Relationship
>>>>> Models e.g. EAV (Entity-Attribute-Value based
>>>>> structured data representation)
>>>>> 2. RDF based Structured Data -- i.e.,
>>>>> structured data endowed with machine- and
>>>>> human-comprehensible entity relationship
>>>>> semantics as defined by RDF (a framework).
>>>>>
>>>>> Related:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity–attribute–value_model
>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity%96attribute%96value_model>
>>>>> -- EAV
>>>>> 2. http://bit.ly/YTdz3N - Peter Chen's circa.
>>>>> 1976 dissertation that covers unified views of
>>>>> data (note: a simple example of these concepts
>>>>> that even predate the World Wide Web).
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Kingsley Idehen
>>>>> Founder & CEO
>>>>> OpenLink Software
>>>>> Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com <http://www.openlinksw.com/>
>>>>> Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
>>>>> Twitter/Identi.ca <http://Identi.ca> handle: @kidehen
>>>>> Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>>>>> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Kingsley Idehen
>>>> Founder & CEO
>>>> OpenLink Software
>>>> Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com <http://www.openlinksw.com/>
>>>> Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
>>>> Twitter/Identi.ca <http://Identi.ca> handle: @kidehen
>>>> Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>>>> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Kingsley Idehen
>>> Founder & CEO
>>> OpenLink Software
>>> Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com <http://www.openlinksw.com/>
>>> Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
>>> Twitter/Identi.ca <http://Identi.ca> handle: @kidehen
>>> Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>>> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> Founder & CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com <http://www.openlinksw.com/>
>> Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
>> Twitter/Identi.ca <http://Identi.ca> handle: @kidehen
>> Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Manu Sporny]

On 06/17/2013 06:21 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
> This still doesn't answer my initial question "How do you produce
> Linked Data without RDF?".

Here's the first way (plain 'ol JSON object):

{
"id": "http://example.com/people/luca",
"type": "http://schema.org/Person",
"name": "Luca Matteis"
}

The document above is interpreted as Linked Data using the following rules:

1. The thing you're talking about is identified via 'id'.
2. The type of the thing you're talking about is identified via 'type'.
3. All keys, except for 'id' and 'type', are appended to 'type''s value,
with a '/' separator.

That's Linked Data. It has no formal relationship to RDF.

Here's the second way (Microdata):

http://www.w3.org/TR/microdata/

The base Microdata spec has nothing to do with RDF. However, if you are
going to assert that RDFa is Linked Data, then you have to assert that
Microdata is Linked Data. Since Microdata has no linkage to RDF, what
are you left with? Answer: A syntax that allows you to express Linked
Data without using RDF in any way.

Here's the third way (RFC-5988: Web Linking):

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988

The Web Linking RFC defines a typed connection between two resources
that are identified by Internationalised Resource Identifiers (IRIs) and
is comprised of:

o A context IRI,
o a link relation type (Section 4),
o a target IRI, and
o optionally, target attributes.

Isn't this Linked Data as well?

Here's a fourth way (HAL - Hypertext Application Language):

http://stateless.co/hal_specification.html

"""
HAL provides a set of conventions for expressing hyperlinks to, and
embeddedness of, related resources - the rest of a HAL document is just
plain old JSON or XML. Instead of using linkless JSON/XML, or spending
time developing a custom media type, you can just use HAL and focus on
defining and documenting the link relations that direct your clients
through your API. HAL is a bit like HTML for machines, in that it is
generic and designed to drive many different types of application.
"""

HAL is also Linked Data.

To assert that Linked Data requires RDF requires you to make compelling
arguments against at least these four pieces of evidence.

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Meritora - Web payments commercial launch
http://blog.meritora.com/launch/

[ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program]

The debate about whether linked data requires RDF is actually a typical example of a wrong formulation in the applicable logic formats in reasoning resulting from the imperfection of natural language.

The formal definition of the semantic web and its component layers and constituent  tools like RDF is but one way of linking data.

Manu is right and his open minded statement also signals the now common problem of defining what constitutes big data, which should be a category of vast amounts of raw data that can be linked.

If we want to avoid many flavors of linked data clouding the Internet scape (sorry for the pun) we need to come up with a more acceptable definition of how we interpret linked data in terms of semantic linkage.

We generally equate linked data with RDF and related tools and technologies but the rest of the netizens may beg to differ.



 
Milton Ponson
GSM: [phone]
PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
Project Paradigm: A structured approach to bringing the tools for sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide by creating ICT tools for NGOs worldwide and: providing online access to web sites and repositories of data and information for sustainable development

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.



________________________________
From: Manu Sporny <msporny-FpEJLV8oj+AqgwVRcPComAC/***@public.gmane.org>
To: Luca Matteis <***@gmail.com>
Cc: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho-***@public.gmane.org>; David Wood <david-9lQWNqMQ+***@public.gmane.org>; Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>; Linked Data community <public-lod-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 8:11 PM
Subject: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF (was: Re: The need for RDF in Linked Data)


On 06/17/2013 06:21 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
> This still doesn't answer my initial question "How do you produce
> Linked Data without RDF?".

Here's the first way (plain 'ol JSON object):

{
  "id": "http://example.com/people/luca",
  "type": "http://schema.org/Person",
  "name": "Luca Matteis"
}

The document above is interpreted as Linked Data using the following rules:

1. The thing you're talking about is identified via 'id'.
2. The type of the thing you're talking about is identified via 'type'.
3. All keys, except for 'id' and 'type', are appended to 'type''s value,
  with a '/' separator.

That's Linked Data. It has no formal relationship to RDF.

Here's the second way (Microdata):

http://www.w3.org/TR/microdata/

The base Microdata spec has nothing to do with RDF. However, if you are
going to assert that RDFa is Linked Data, then you have to assert that
Microdata is Linked Data. Since Microdata has no linkage to RDF, what
are you left with? Answer: A syntax that allows you to express Linked
Data without using RDF in any way.

Here's the third way (RFC-5988: Web Linking):

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988

The Web Linking RFC defines a typed connection between two resources
that are identified by Internationalised Resource Identifiers (IRIs) and
is comprised of:

  o  A context IRI,
  o  a link relation type (Section 4),
  o  a target IRI, and
  o  optionally, target attributes.

Isn't this Linked Data as well?

Here's a fourth way (HAL - Hypertext Application Language):

http://stateless.co/hal_specification.html

"""
HAL provides a set of conventions for expressing hyperlinks to, and
embeddedness of, related resources - the rest of a HAL document is just
plain old JSON or XML. Instead of using linkless JSON/XML, or spending
time developing a custom media type, you can just use HAL and focus on
defining and documenting the link relations that direct your clients
through your API. HAL is a bit like HTML for machines, in that it is
generic and designed to drive many different types of application.
"""

HAL is also Linked Data.

To assert that Linked Data requires RDF requires you to make compelling
arguments against at least these four pieces of evidence.

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Meritora - Web payments commercial launch
http://blog.meritora.com/launch/

[David Booth]

On 06/17/2013 08:11 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> On 06/17/2013 06:21 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>> This still doesn't answer my initial question "How do you produce
>> Linked Data without RDF?".
>
> Here's the first way (plain 'ol JSON object):
>
> {
> "id": "http://example.com/people/luca",
> "type": "http://schema.org/Person",
> "name": "Luca Matteis"
> }
>
> The document above is interpreted as Linked Data using the following rules:
>
> 1. The thing you're talking about is identified via 'id'.
> 2. The type of the thing you're talking about is identified via 'type'.
> 3. All keys, except for 'id' and 'type', are appended to 'type''s value,
> with a '/' separator.
>
> That's Linked Data. It has no formal relationship to RDF.

No, it is data that is linked. I would not consider it Linked Data (the
term of art) because there is no standards-based way to interpret it as
RDF. You are using private knowledge to interpret its meaning.

Bear in mind a document does not have to *look* (overtly) like RDF to
*be* RDF -- i.e., to be standards-based interpretable as RDF. Arbitrary
XML documents that use GRDDL are a good example. If there were a
standards-based equivalent of GRDDL for the above plain old JSON, then
IMO it *would* qualify as Linked Data (assuming the URIs are
dereferenceable to more Linked Data) *because* it could be interpreted
via standards as RDF.

>
> Here's the second way (Microdata):
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/microdata/
>
> The base Microdata spec has nothing to do with RDF. However, if you are
> going to assert that RDFa is Linked Data, then you have to assert that
> Microdata is Linked Data. Since Microdata has no linkage to RDF, what
> are you left with? Answer: A syntax that allows you to express Linked
> Data without using RDF in any way.

I don't know the status of that spec, but if there is a standards-based
way to interpret it as RDF, then it qualifies as Linked Data. If not,
it doesn't. It is as simple as that. (Well, assuming it also makes
URIs dereferenceable to other Linked Data, etc.)

>
> Here's the third way (RFC-5988: Web Linking):
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988
>
> The Web Linking RFC defines a typed connection between two resources
> that are identified by Internationalised Resource Identifiers (IRIs) and
> is comprised of:
>
> o A context IRI,
> o a link relation type (Section 4),
> o a target IRI, and
> o optionally, target attributes.
>
> Isn't this Linked Data as well?

If it expresses an RDF triple (and if the URIs are dereferenceable to
more Linked Data), then yes. Does it? I'm not sure. In section 3 I see:
[[
A link can be viewed as a statement of the form "{context IRI} has a
{relation type} resource at {target IRI}, which has {target
attributes}".
]]
So although that looks somewhat RDF-ish, it is not clear exactly what
RDF it should represent. So it looks to me like it is data that is
linked, but not Linked Data.

>
> Here's a fourth way (HAL - Hypertext Application Language):
>
> http://stateless.co/hal_specification.html
>
> """
> HAL provides a set of conventions for expressing hyperlinks to, and
> embeddedness of, related resources - the rest of a HAL document is just
> plain old JSON or XML. Instead of using linkless JSON/XML, or spending
> time developing a custom media type, you can just use HAL and focus on
> defining and documenting the link relations that direct your clients
> through your API. HAL is a bit like HTML for machines, in that it is
> generic and designed to drive many different types of application.
> """
>
> HAL is also Linked Data.
>
> To assert that Linked Data requires RDF requires you to make compelling
> arguments against at least these four pieces of evidence.

They are all data that is linked, but I (and apparently most others in
the Semantic Web context) would not consider them Linked Data, because
IMO Linked Data should support the goal of the Semantic Web, and as I
explained at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2013Jun/0120.html
that requires RDF, because RDF is the chosen standard universal
information model for the Semantic Web.

David

[David Booth]

On 06/18/2013 12:05 AM, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program wrote:
> The debate about whether linked data requires RDF is actually a typical
> example of a wrong formulation in the applicable logic formats in
> reasoning resulting from the imperfection of natural language.
>
> The formal definition of the semantic web and its component layers and
> constituent tools like RDF is but one way of linking data.

That completely misses the point of this debate. The debate is not
about whether there are other ways of linking data. It is about the
meaning of the term "Linked Data" **as a term of art**. It is often
capitalized as Linked Data to emphasize that it has special meaning (as
a term of art) beyond just "data that is linked".

David

[エリクソン トーレ]

One could argue that these examples, while not being RDF, still
adhere to the RDF abstract syntax (triples describing typed directed
relationships between resource).

> Here's the first way (plain 'ol JSON object):
>
> {
> "id": "http://example.com/people/luca",
> "type": "http://schema.org/Person",
> "name": "Luca Matteis"
> }
>
> The document above is interpreted as Linked Data using the following
> rules:
>
> 1. The thing you're talking about is identified via 'id'.
> 2. The type of the thing you're talking about is identified via 'type'.
> 3. All keys, except for 'id' and 'type', are appended to 'type''s value,
> with a '/' separator.
>
> That's Linked Data. It has no formal relationship to RDF.

The three rules could be seen as a simple GRDDL-like specification.
Applying them will give you a subset of RDF (no blank nodes?).

> Here's the second way (Microdata):
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/microdata/
>
> The base Microdata spec has nothing to do with RDF. However, if you are
> going to assert that RDFa is Linked Data, then you have to assert that
> Microdata is Linked Data. Since Microdata has no linkage to RDF, what
> are you left with? Answer: A syntax that allows you to express Linked
> Data without using RDF in any way.

I'll skip this since other people know the fine points of Microdata
much better than me.

> Here's the third way (RFC-5988: Web Linking):
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988
>
> The Web Linking RFC defines a typed connection between two resources that
> are identified by Internationalised Resource Identifiers (IRIs) and is
> comprised of:
>
> o A context IRI,
> o a link relation type (Section 4),
> o a target IRI, and
> o optionally, target attributes.
>
> Isn't this Linked Data as well?

Yes, and I see the same concept as in RDF - resources and typed links,
all denoted by URIs.

> Here's a fourth way (HAL - Hypertext Application Language):
>
> http://stateless.co/hal_specification.html
>
> """
> HAL provides a set of conventions for expressing hyperlinks to, and
> embeddedness of, related resources - the rest of a HAL document is just
> plain old JSON or XML. Instead of using linkless JSON/XML, or spending
> time developing a custom media type, you can just use HAL and focus on
> defining and documenting the link relations that direct your clients
> through your API. HAL is a bit like HTML for machines, in that it is
> generic and designed to drive many different types of application.
> """
>
> HAL is also Linked Data.

As above.

> To assert that Linked Data requires RDF requires you to make compelling
> arguments against at least these four pieces of evidence.

Perhaps I'm moving the goal posts here, but my take on this is that in
order to achive the goals of Linked Data you will end up with something
that overlaps the RDF abstract model. Most cases seem to subsets - no
blank nodes or typed literals &c. The interesting question is the semantics.
An useful baseline for the LD community could be that all Linked Data
follows the RDF sematics[] unless other semantics are explicitly
specified.

[David Booth]

On 06/18/2013 01:42 AM, エリクソン　トーレ wrote:
> One could argue that these examples, while not being RDF, still
> adhere to the RDF abstract syntax (triples describing typed directed
> relationships between resource).

But that's what RDF *is* -- the abstract syntax. RDF is syntax independent.

>
>> Here's the first way (plain 'ol JSON object):
>>
>> {
>> "id": "http://example.com/people/luca",
>> "type": "http://schema.org/Person",
>> "name": "Luca Matteis"
>> }
>>
>> The document above is interpreted as Linked Data using the following
>> rules:
>>
>> 1. The thing you're talking about is identified via 'id'.
>> 2. The type of the thing you're talking about is identified via 'type'.
>> 3. All keys, except for 'id' and 'type', are appended to 'type''s value,
>> with a '/' separator.
>>
>> That's Linked Data. It has no formal relationship to RDF.
>
> The three rules could be seen as a simple GRDDL-like specification.
> Applying them will give you a subset of RDF (no blank nodes?).

Except that they are not standards-based. :( So there is no way for a
client to reliably interpret them as RDF without some kind of
out-of-band or private information.

David

[Michael Brunnbauer]

hi all,

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:44:23AM -0400, David Booth wrote:
> ... if there is a standards-based
> way to interpret it as RDF, then it qualifies as Linked Data.

+1

This looks like a nice definition of Linked Data to me.

Regards,

Michael Brunnbauer

--
++ Michael Brunnbauer
++ netEstate GmbH
++ Geisenhausener Straße 11a
++ 81379 München
++ Tel [phone]
++ Fax [phone]
++ E-Mail brunni-***@public.gmane.org
++ http://www.netestate.de/
++
++ Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
++ USt-IdNr. DE221033342
++ Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
++ Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel

[Luca Matteis]

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny-FpEJLV8oj+AqgwVRcPComAC/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> Here's the first way (plain 'ol JSON object):


Again our bible is Tim-Berners Lee's definition ("Use open standards from
W3C"). Microdata, HAL and other formats you're mentioning are *not* W3C
standards.

[Jürgen Jakobitsch SWC]

nice examples,

here are my 2 cents :

from a Linked Data perspective RDF is not an ~interface and therefor
should (must) not be the dependency of something else.
RDF however makes use of http keys (IRI) which makes entity descriptions
dereferenceable which in turn is essential to Linked Data.
If it is an EAV model on triple basis or something else does not really
matter as long as there is a way to find out how to intepret the data
retrieved.

i guess the correct answer to "Does Linked Data require RDF" is indeed :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29

wkr turnguard

On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 20:11 -0400, Manu Sporny wrote:
> On 06/17/2013 06:21 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
> > This still doesn't answer my initial question "How do you produce
> > Linked Data without RDF?".
>
> Here's the first way (plain 'ol JSON object):
>
> {
> "id": "http://example.com/people/luca",
> "type": "http://schema.org/Person",
> "name": "Luca Matteis"
> }
>
> The document above is interpreted as Linked Data using the following rules:
>
> 1. The thing you're talking about is identified via 'id'.
> 2. The type of the thing you're talking about is identified via 'type'.
> 3. All keys, except for 'id' and 'type', are appended to 'type''s value,
> with a '/' separator.
>
> That's Linked Data. It has no formal relationship to RDF.
>
> Here's the second way (Microdata):
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/microdata/
>
> The base Microdata spec has nothing to do with RDF. However, if you are
> going to assert that RDFa is Linked Data, then you have to assert that
> Microdata is Linked Data. Since Microdata has no linkage to RDF, what
> are you left with? Answer: A syntax that allows you to express Linked
> Data without using RDF in any way.
>
> Here's the third way (RFC-5988: Web Linking):
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988
>
> The Web Linking RFC defines a typed connection between two resources
> that are identified by Internationalised Resource Identifiers (IRIs) and
> is comprised of:
>
> o A context IRI,
> o a link relation type (Section 4),
> o a target IRI, and
> o optionally, target attributes.
>
> Isn't this Linked Data as well?
>
> Here's a fourth way (HAL - Hypertext Application Language):
>
> http://stateless.co/hal_specification.html
>
> """
> HAL provides a set of conventions for expressing hyperlinks to, and
> embeddedness of, related resources - the rest of a HAL document is just
> plain old JSON or XML. Instead of using linkless JSON/XML, or spending
> time developing a custom media type, you can just use HAL and focus on
> defining and documenting the link relations that direct your clients
> through your API. HAL is a bit like HTML for machines, in that it is
> generic and designed to drive many different types of application.
> """
>
> HAL is also Linked Data.
>
> To assert that Linked Data requires RDF requires you to make compelling
> arguments against at least these four pieces of evidence.
>
> -- manu
>

--
| Jürgen Jakobitsch,
| Software Developer
| Semantic Web Company GmbH
| Mariahilfer Straße 70 / Neubaugasse 1, Top 8
| A - 1070 Wien, Austria
| Mob [phone] | Fax [phone] - 22

COMPANY INFORMATION
| web : http://www.semantic-web.at/
| foaf : http://company.semantic-web.at/person/juergen_jakobitsch
PERSONAL INFORMATION
| web : http://www.turnguard.com
| foaf : http://www.turnguard.com/turnguard
| g+ : https://plus.google.com/111233759991616358206/posts
| skype : jakobitsch-punkt
| xmlns:tg = "http://www.turnguard.com/turnguard#"

[Luca Matteis]

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:01 AM, David Booth <david-v6neA7yUtRodnm+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> That completely misses the point of this debate. The debate is not about
> whether there are other ways of linking data. It is about the meaning of
> the term "Linked Data" **as a term of art**. It is often capitalized as
> Linked Data to emphasize that it has special meaning (as a term of art)
> beyond just "data that is linked".


+1

Actually I wish this entire discussion would be on G+ or HackerNews so we
could up-vote each answer and actually see the entire trend of the
discussion.

[Melvin Carvalho]

On 18 June 2013 06:44, David Booth <david-v6neA7yUtRodnm+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On 06/17/2013 08:11 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
>
>> On 06/17/2013 06:21 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>
>>> This still doesn't answer my initial question "How do you produce
>>> Linked Data without RDF?".
>>>
>>
>> Here's the first way (plain 'ol JSON object):
>>
>> {
>> "id": "http://example.com/people/**luca<http://example.com/people/luca>
>> ",
>> "type": "http://schema.org/Person",
>> "name": "Luca Matteis"
>> }
>>
>> The document above is interpreted as Linked Data using the following
>> rules:
>>
>> 1. The thing you're talking about is identified via 'id'.
>> 2. The type of the thing you're talking about is identified via 'type'.
>> 3. All keys, except for 'id' and 'type', are appended to 'type''s value,
>> with a '/' separator.
>>
>> That's Linked Data. It has no formal relationship to RDF.
>>
>
> No, it is data that is linked. I would not consider it Linked Data (the
> term of art) because there is no standards-based way to interpret it as
> RDF. You are using private knowledge to interpret its meaning.
>
> Bear in mind a document does not have to *look* (overtly) like RDF to *be*
> RDF -- i.e., to be standards-based interpretable as RDF. Arbitrary XML
> documents that use GRDDL are a good example. If there were a
> standards-based equivalent of GRDDL for the above plain old JSON, then IMO
> it *would* qualify as Linked Data (assuming the URIs are dereferenceable to
> more Linked Data) *because* it could be interpreted via standards as RDF.
>
>
>> Here's the second way (Microdata):
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/**microdata/ <http://www.w3.org/TR/microdata/>
>>
>> The base Microdata spec has nothing to do with RDF. However, if you are
>> going to assert that RDFa is Linked Data, then you have to assert that
>> Microdata is Linked Data. Since Microdata has no linkage to RDF, what
>> are you left with? Answer: A syntax that allows you to express Linked
>> Data without using RDF in any way.
>>
>
> I don't know the status of that spec, but if there is a standards-based
> way to interpret it as RDF, then it qualifies as Linked Data. If not, it
> doesn't. It is as simple as that. (Well, assuming it also makes URIs
> dereferenceable to other Linked Data, etc.)
>

This seems to be turning into a branding discussion. I think the mug gives
you a good idea of what the brand means:

http://www.cafepress.com/w3c_shop.480759174


>
>
>> Here's the third way (RFC-5988: Web Linking):
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/**rfc5988 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988>
>>
>> The Web Linking RFC defines a typed connection between two resources
>> that are identified by Internationalised Resource Identifiers (IRIs) and
>> is comprised of:
>>
>> o A context IRI,
>> o a link relation type (Section 4),
>> o a target IRI, and
>> o optionally, target attributes.
>>
>> Isn't this Linked Data as well?
>>
>
> If it expresses an RDF triple (and if the URIs are dereferenceable to more
> Linked Data), then yes. Does it? I'm not sure. In section 3 I see:
> [[
> A link can be viewed as a statement of the form "{context IRI} has a
> {relation type} resource at {target IRI}, which has {target
> attributes}".
> ]]
> So although that looks somewhat RDF-ish, it is not clear exactly what RDF
> it should represent. So it looks to me like it is data that is linked, but
> not Linked Data.
>
>
>> Here's a fourth way (HAL - Hypertext Application Language):
>>
>> http://stateless.co/hal_**specification.html<http://stateless.co/hal_specification.html>
>>
>> """
>> HAL provides a set of conventions for expressing hyperlinks to, and
>> embeddedness of, related resources - the rest of a HAL document is just
>> plain old JSON or XML. Instead of using linkless JSON/XML, or spending
>> time developing a custom media type, you can just use HAL and focus on
>> defining and documenting the link relations that direct your clients
>> through your API. HAL is a bit like HTML for machines, in that it is
>> generic and designed to drive many different types of application.
>> """
>>
>> HAL is also Linked Data.
>>
>> To assert that Linked Data requires RDF requires you to make compelling
>> arguments against at least these four pieces of evidence.
>>
>
> They are all data that is linked, but I (and apparently most others in the
> Semantic Web context) would not consider them Linked Data, because IMO
> Linked Data should support the goal of the Semantic Web, and as I explained
> at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/semantic-web/2013Jun/**0120.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2013Jun/0120.html>
> that requires RDF, because RDF is the chosen standard universal
> information model for the Semantic Web.
>
> David
>
>
>

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/18/13 12:05 AM, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program wrote:
> .
>
> If we want to avoid many flavors of linked data clouding the Internet
> scape (sorry for the pun) we need to come up with a more acceptable
> definition of how we interpret linked data in terms of semantic linkage.
>
> We generally equate linked data with RDF and related tools and
> technologies but the rest of the netizens may beg to differ.
It's quite simple, and it's called RDF based Linked Data. What does that
give you? The web-like structure of Linked Data combined with the
*explicit* (rather than implicit) machine- and human-comprehensible
entity relationship semantics of RDF.

As already stated in an earlier post, I don't understand why "inference"
and "reasoning" are words that are no longer associated (instinctively)
with RDF as unique selling points. Being able to make increasingly
precise sense of data (based on its entity relationship based structure)
is a major virtue!

--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Norman Gray]

Kingsley and all, hello.

On 2013 Jun 18, at 11:51, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> As already stated in an earlier post, I don't understand why "inference" and "reasoning" are words that are no longer associated (instinctively) with RDF as unique selling points. Being able to make increasingly precise sense of data (based on its entity relationship based structure) is a major virtue!

Because they're very poor selling points for most people.

For SW people, and _some_ techies, reasoning is a plus; for most people, including most techies, it's just confusing technobabble. That part of the sales pitch might as well be in swahili -- you'd do as well trying to sell a family car based on the number of megaflops in the engine-management system; you're more likely to put people off rather than reel them in.

However inference and ubiquity/interoperability are separate and independent selling points, and people _do_ get the latter. For me, the LD practice means I can frame a clear and consistent interoperability story for RDF (perhaps with some light inference as a neat trick), leaving the heavy reasoning -- which is valuable for the reasons you say -- to a later and separate SW pitch.

All the best,

Norman


--
Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/18/13 1:01 AM, David Booth wrote:
> On 06/18/2013 12:05 AM, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program wrote:
>> The debate about whether linked data requires RDF is actually a typical
>> example of a wrong formulation in the applicable logic formats in
>> reasoning resulting from the imperfection of natural language.
>>
>> The formal definition of the semantic web and its component layers and
>> constituent tools like RDF is but one way of linking data.
>
> That completely misses the point of this debate. The debate is not
> about whether there are other ways of linking data. It is about the
> meaning of the term "Linked Data" **as a term of art**. It is often
> capitalized as Linked Data to emphasize that it has special meaning
> (as a term of art) beyond just "data that is linked".
>
> David

That's inaccurate. I use the phrase Linked Data a lot. Yes, I do it with
special meaning in mind, but that wasn't (or isn't) about RDF. That's
all about the fundamental principles of web-like structured data
representation as outlined in TimBL's original meme. I (and others ) do
know how to add RDF to the mix when communicating this way i.e., RDF
based Linked Data.

Now please don't tell me that Linked Data is a W3C "term of art" please
don't go there.
>
>
>
>
>


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Melvin Carvalho]

On 18 June 2013 13:43, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On 6/18/13 1:01 AM, David Booth wrote:
>
>> On 06/18/2013 12:05 AM, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program wrote:
>>
>>> The debate about whether linked data requires RDF is actually a typical
>>> example of a wrong formulation in the applicable logic formats in
>>> reasoning resulting from the imperfection of natural language.
>>>
>>> The formal definition of the semantic web and its component layers and
>>> constituent tools like RDF is but one way of linking data.
>>>
>>
>> That completely misses the point of this debate. The debate is not about
>> whether there are other ways of linking data. It is about the meaning of
>> the term "Linked Data" **as a term of art**. It is often capitalized as
>> Linked Data to emphasize that it has special meaning (as a term of art)
>> beyond just "data that is linked".
>>
>> David
>>
>
> That's inaccurate. I use the phrase Linked Data a lot. Yes, I do it with
> special meaning in mind, but that wasn't (or isn't) about RDF. That's all
> about the fundamental principles of web-like structured data representation
> as outlined in TimBL's original meme. I (and others ) do know how to add
> RDF to the mix when communicating this way i.e., RDF based Linked Data.
>
> Now please don't tell me that Linked Data is a W3C "term of art" please
> don't go there.


+1

1. Linked Data MAY be RDF.

NOT

2. Linked Data MUST be RDF.

I think any attempts to rebrand LD as enforcing the latter is likely to be
unsuccessful, and perhaps even an unproductive use of time.

I think most people have a pretty good intuition of the terms, and how to
use them to achieve interop, and get work done.

>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/**blog/~kidehen<http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen>
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/**112399767740508618350/about<https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about>
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/**kidehen<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/18/13 12:44 AM, David Booth wrote:
> On 06/17/2013 08:11 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
>> On 06/17/2013 06:21 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>> This still doesn't answer my initial question "How do you produce
>>> Linked Data without RDF?".
>>
>> Here's the first way (plain 'ol JSON object):
>>
>> {
>> "id": "http://example.com/people/luca",
>> "type": "http://schema.org/Person",
>> "name": "Luca Matteis"
>> }
>>
>> The document above is interpreted as Linked Data using the following
>> rules:
>>
>> 1. The thing you're talking about is identified via 'id'.
>> 2. The type of the thing you're talking about is identified via 'type'.
>> 3. All keys, except for 'id' and 'type', are appended to 'type''s value,
>> with a '/' separator.
>>
>> That's Linked Data. It has no formal relationship to RDF.
>
> No, it is data that is linked.

That is simply inaccurate.

The data structure is web-like i.e., the actual data representation is
like a web. Basically, you have an entity relationship comprised of:
Entity, Entity Attribute, and Entity Attribute Value.

Note, the Attribute's role in the relationship is to map the Entity to a
Value. It also facilitates the association between the Entity denoted by
an Identifier and a Value also denoted by an Identifier. In addition to
all of this, it also serves the role of a Predicate when dealing with
sets of relationships (i.e., Relations) i.e., the truth value tester for
Relation membership.

You denote the Entity, Attribute, and Value parts of a relationship
using identifiers (these may be literals or references).

> I would not consider it Linked Data (the term of art) because there is
> no standards-based way to interpret it as RDF.

"term or art" how is that relevant to this technical discussion?

> You are using private knowledge to interpret its meaning.

Put differently, the entity relationship semantics aren't explicit. You
don't need "term of art" as an ambiguity vector in this debate.

> Bear in mind a document does not have to *look* (overtly) like RDF to
> *be* RDF -- i.e., to be standards-based interpretable as RDF.

I already provided an example of document [2] bearing content that looks
like RDF but isn't explicitly RDF while being 100% Linked Data i.e., it
complies with the principles outlined in any of TimBL's meme relating to
Linked Data.

> Arbitrary XML documents that use GRDDL are a good example. If there
> were a standards-based equivalent of GRDDL for the above plain old
> JSON, then IMO it *would* qualify as Linked Data (assuming the URIs
> are dereferenceable to more Linked Data) *because* it could be
> interpreted via standards as RDF.
>

You are getting closer to the core distinguishing characteristics that
RDF adds to Linked Data. Unfortunately, you also keep on pivoting back
to an ambiguity zone that is indefensible. Look, RDF simply enables the
addition of *explicit* entity relationship semantics to this matter of
web-like structured data representation. If the entity relationship
semantics are comprehensible to humans and machines, they are deemed
interpretable by either. Basically, we are back to the fact that RDF
makes it possible to reason on the web-like structured data.

RDF cannot make a flawed play for the entire subject of structured data
representation that leverages references as entity identifiers (or
denotation/naming mechanisms). That will never be accepted by anyone
with a modicum of knowledge about structured data representation. As I
asked some time ago, is RDF based on anything at all? Is this the one
unique technology devoid of genealogy?

>>
>> Here's the second way (Microdata):
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/microdata/
>>
>> The base Microdata spec has nothing to do with RDF. However, if you are
>> going to assert that RDFa is Linked Data, then you have to assert that
>> Microdata is Linked Data. Since Microdata has no linkage to RDF, what
>> are you left with? Answer: A syntax that allows you to express Linked
>> Data without using RDF in any way.
>
> I don't know the status of that spec, but if there is a
> standards-based way to interpret it as RDF, then it qualifies as
> Linked Data.

We are not discussing a W3C spec at this point. I also don't assume that
by the W3C hosting this mailing list one has to instinctively assume
that all conversations are about W3C specs. Thus, with the context
clarity in place, how can you not see that Microdata is just another
syntax for creating web-like structured data that's 100% compatible with
the principles outlined in TimBL's original meme?

> If not, it doesn't.

At this point in the thread, you shouldn't be spooked when I assert that
you are now conflating RDF and Linked Data. You are inserting a defining
characteristic of Linked Data into you basis for determining what
constitutes Linked Data. You are using the word "interpret" and earlier
on you made reference to location of knowledge required for the
interpretation in question.

When TimBL added "..use the standards (RDF, SPARQL)..." to his revised
meme it had nothing to do with being able to interpret entity
relationship semantics.

> It is as simple as that. (Well, assuming it also makes URIs
> dereferenceable to other Linked Data, etc.)
Inaccurate.


URIs that resolve in a manner that delivers Name->Address indirection
such that a URI resolves to the description of its referent is the crux
of the matter re. Linked Data (or web-like structured data). This
pattern is fundamental to the Web as a whole, it just so happened that
we applied it to entities of type "HTML Document" and other digital
resources -- long before there was any notion of a Resource Description
Framework and its ability to make Blogic (logic enhanced web-like
structured data that scales to the World Wide Web).

>
>>
>> Here's the third way (RFC-5988: Web Linking):
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988
>>
>> The Web Linking RFC defines a typed connection between two resources
>> that are identified by Internationalised Resource Identifiers (IRIs) and
>> is comprised of:
>>
>> o A context IRI,
>> o a link relation type (Section 4),
>> o a target IRI, and
>> o optionally, target attributes.
>>
>> Isn't this Linked Data as well?
>
> If it expresses an RDF triple (and if the URIs are dereferenceable to
> more Linked Data), then yes. Does it? I'm not sure. In section 3 I
> see:
> [[
> A link can be viewed as a statement of the form "{context IRI} has a
> {relation type} resource at {target IRI}, which has {target
> attributes}".
> ]]
> So although that looks somewhat RDF-ish, it is not clear exactly what
> RDF it should represent. So it looks to me like it is data that is
> linked, but not Linked Data.

That's once again inaccurate. You are conflating the unique
characteristics of RDF and Linked Data.

>
>>
>> Here's a fourth way (HAL - Hypertext Application Language):
>>
>> http://stateless.co/hal_specification.html
>>
>> """
>> HAL provides a set of conventions for expressing hyperlinks to, and
>> embeddedness of, related resources - the rest of a HAL document is just
>> plain old JSON or XML. Instead of using linkless JSON/XML, or spending
>> time developing a custom media type, you can just use HAL and focus on
>> defining and documenting the link relations that direct your clients
>> through your API. HAL is a bit like HTML for machines, in that it is
>> generic and designed to drive many different types of application.
>> """
>>
>> HAL is also Linked Data.
>>
>> To assert that Linked Data requires RDF requires you to make compelling
>> arguments against at least these four pieces of evidence.
>
> They are all data that is linked, but I (and apparently most others in
> the Semantic Web context) would not consider them Linked Data, because
> IMO Linked Data should support the goal of the Semantic Web, and as I
> explained at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2013Jun/0120.html
> that requires RDF, because RDF is the chosen standard universal
> information model for the Semantic Web.

When you have web-like structured data (crafted with HTTP URIs) combined
with explicit entity relationship semantics delivered by RDF, you end up
with a higher-fidelity Semantic Web.

In its most basic form, the World Wide Web has been a coarse-grained
Semantic Web since inception! What do I mean by the Web has been a
Semantic Web since inception? I mean its been a Web of entity
relationships woven together by HTTP URIs. In the most basic sense,
every Web Resource is related to other Web Resource i.e., one Web
Resource is in a "LinksTo" relation with others. Thus, it's the
"LinkTo" relation that underlies the Web, everything else is about
semantics that provide granularity to the aforementioned "LinksTo"
relation.

We are all related, that's a fact. How? That's a different matter since
we are all related is different ways i.e., we are all members of
different relations.


Links:

1.
http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test2.ttl
-- running example of a document comprised of Linked Data content that
isn't indistinguishably RDF (i.e., it's 100% compliant with TimBL's
memes while not being uniquely RDF)

2. http://bit.ly/13lcdAM -- Vapor (Linked Data principles verification
utility) report for DBpedia's URI that denotes the Linked Data concept

3. http://dbpedia.org/page/Linked_data -- URI/URL that denotes an HTML
document that describes the Linked Data concept (note: the foot section
also re. alternative representations of the same entity description)

4.
http://dbpedia.org/describe/?uri=http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data
-- URI/URL that denotes an alternative HTML based document that
describes the Linked Data concept from DBpedia (note: the footer section).


>
> David
>
>
>
>
>


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/18/13 1:42 AM, ゚リク゜ン　トヌレ wrote:
> One could argue that these examples, while not being RDF, still
> adhere to the RDF abstract syntax (triples describing typed directed
> relationships between resource).
In the real-world (outside the W3C):

RDF didn't invent the triple or 3-tuple approach to entity relationship
representation. It didn't invent identifiers either (and that includes
IRIs, URIs, or URLs). Structured data representation isn't a concept
that came to light on the back of RDF. As is always the case, RDF is
small innovation within a vast continuum.



--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/18/13 2:03 AM, David Booth wrote:
> On 06/18/2013 01:42 AM, ゚リク゜ン　トヌレ wrote:
>> One could argue that these examples, while not being RDF, still
>> adhere to the RDF abstract syntax (triples describing typed directed
>> relationships between resource).
>
> But that's what RDF *is* -- the abstract syntax. RDF is syntax
> independent.
Not only is it syntax independent, it's devoid of genealogy too :-)

You are turning RDF's meaning away from "Resource Description Framework"
to "Reality Distortion Field". Luckily, I believe only a minority of
folks hold the distorted views you continue to espouse in this debate.

--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/18/13 3:41 AM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
> hi all,
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:44:23AM -0400, David Booth wrote:
>> ... if there is a standards-based
>> way to interpret it as RDF, then it qualifies as Linked Data.
> +1
>
> This looks like a nice definition of Linked Data to me.
-1

It's broken.

It only palatable in the context of a W3C spec. Again, this debate isn't
about how the W3C defines Linked Data in its specs. This is about a
fundamental concept associated with structured data representation.

Again, the fact that this list is hosted on a W3C server doesn't mean
that when we speak about the concept of Linked Data we are automatically
discussing a W3C world view. FWIW this list didn't start off as a W3C
hosted list.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Brunnbauer
>


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/18/13 3:55 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Manu Sporny
> <msporny-FpEJLV8oj+AqgwVRcPComAC/***@public.gmane.org <mailto:msporny-FpEJLV8oj+AqgwVRcPComAC/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>
> Here's the first way (plain 'ol JSON object):
>
>
> Again our bible is Tim-Berners Lee's definition ("Use open standards
> from W3C"). Microdata, HAL and other formats you're mentioning are
> *not* W3C standards.
Again, this debate isn't about the W3C's specs or world view. The fact
that this list is hosted on a W3C server doesn't automatically insert
its world view into the context of this conversation/debate.

The issue at hand here is the concept of Linked Data.

A W3C spec (e.g., from the RDF workgroup) has the full power and
authority to define Linked Data as it sees fit. That doesn't mean the
fundamental concept is a so-called "term or art" for the W3C etc..

--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Luca Matteis]

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> Luckily, I believe only a minority of folks hold the distorted views you
> continue to espouse in this debate.


I actually believe the opposite. That's why I wish emails had +1 in them.

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/18/13 7:15 AM, Norman Gray wrote:
> Kingsley and all, hello.
>
> On 2013 Jun 18, at 11:51, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>> As already stated in an earlier post, I don't understand why "inference" and "reasoning" are words that are no longer associated (instinctively) with RDF as unique selling points. Being able to make increasingly precise sense of data (based on its entity relationship based structure) is a major virtue!
> Because they're very poor selling points for most people.
>
> For SW people, and _some_ techies, reasoning is a plus; for most people, including most techies, it's just confusing technobabble. That part of the sales pitch might as well be in swahili -- you'd do as well trying to sell a family car based on the number of megaflops in the engine-management system; you're more likely to put people off rather than reel them in.
>
> However inference and ubiquity/interoperability are separate and independent selling points, and people _do_ get the latter. For me, the LD practice means I can frame a clear and consistent interoperability story for RDF (perhaps with some light inference as a neat trick), leaving the heavy reasoning -- which is valuable for the reasons you say -- to a later and separate SW pitch.
>
> All the best,
>
> Norman
>
>
Norman,

I have no issue with RDF based Linked Data.

I have *eternal issues* with false notion that Linked Data can only be
implemented with knowledge of RDF.

What makes this content of my sample document [1] Linked Data, RDF based
Linked Data, or RDF?

I need to make a venn diagram to illustrate a nuance that's getting lost
in this debate.

BTW -- Wondering why RDF continues to hit uptake intertia? It boils down
to broken narratives that always attempt to teach parents how to make
babies.

Links:

1.
http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test2.ttl
- a document comprised of structured data oriented content (i.e., a
collection of entity relationship statements in EAV/SPO form).


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[David Booth]

On 06/18/2013 08:29 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org
> <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>
> Luckily, I believe only a minority of folks hold the distorted views
> you continue to espouse in this debate.
>
> I actually believe the opposite. That's why I wish emails had +1 in them.

Indeed, the results of this poll on the meaning of the term Linked Data
are pretty clear, though I'm sure an extremely vocal minority will swear
up and down that they are meaningless:
http://goo.gl/GMeom

The original poll was posted here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/0163.html

David

[Melvin Carvalho]

On 18 June 2013 15:24, David Booth <david-v6neA7yUtRodnm+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On 06/18/2013 08:29 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org
>> <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org**>> wrote:
>>
>> Luckily, I believe only a minority of folks hold the distorted views
>> you continue to espouse in this debate.
>>
>> I actually believe the opposite. That's why I wish emails had +1 in them.
>>
>
> Indeed, the results of this poll on the meaning of the term Linked Data
> are pretty clear, though I'm sure an extremely vocal minority will swear up
> and down that they are meaningless:
> http://goo.gl/GMeom
>

-1


>
> The original poll was posted here:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-lod/2013Jun/**0163.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/0163.html>
>
> David
>
>

[David Booth]

[Oops! I just noticed this stuck in my out box]

On 06/17/2013 08:07 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 6/17/13 1:35 AM, David Booth wrote:
>>
>> If the term Linked Data is "hijacked" by a broader population
>> to mean *any* sort of data that is linked -- not necessarily
>> RDF -- then this will be a major loss to the Semantic Web
>> community, because it is very hard to come up with simple ways
>> to communicate the essence of the Semantic Web. The Linked
>> Data meme has been extremely helpful. If the RDF component
>> is lost, we will have lost the best meme we have ever had for
>> explaining the Semantic Web.`
> David,
>
> It's possible to debate a matter without unnecessary use of inflammatory
> language. I would happily debate you any day about this subject matter,
> but I struggle with your choice of words.

I sincerely apologize if it sounded inflammatory, as it was not intended
that way. it was intended to be accurately descriptive of how it feels.

>
> Have you considered that "hijacked" is utterly unnecessary in this
> debate? Irrespective of who might be right or wrong, nobody is trying to
> hijack anything.

I chose that word because it accurately describes how it feels to have
such an important meme taken away by having its meaning altered in such
a critical way.

> Put differently, can you make a convincing case against
> that fact that by inserting RDF -- in immutable form -- into the Linked
> Data conversation (retrospectively) it could also be perceived by some
> as hijacking?

Yes. That is why I put the word in quotes: to acknowledge that that is
one perspective, and others with a different perspective may look at it
differently. apparently I should have pushed in a more explicit
disclaimer such as: ". . . at least, that is how it *feels*".

>
> If you recall, your fundamental thesis is predicated on the notion that
> it took TimBL 3 years (between 2006 and 2009) to realize that he was
> inarticulate about RDF in all his prior Linked Data related memes.

No, it is not. Again, my thesis is: (a) "Linked Data" is a term of art,
in the Semantic Web community, that implies the use of RDF; and (b) the
loss of that term as a term of art (by altering its meaning in a
critical way) would be harmful to the goals of the Semantic Web.

David

[Luca Matteis]

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:24 PM, David Booth <david-v6neA7yUtRodnm+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Indeed, the results of this poll on the meaning of the term Linked Data
> are pretty clear, though I'm sure an extremely vocal minority will swear up
> and down that they are meaningless:
> http://goo.gl/GMeom
>
> The original poll was posted here:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-lod/2013Jun/**0163.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/0163.html>
>

+1

[Sarven Capadisli]

On 06/18/2013 03:24 PM, David Booth wrote:
> On 06/18/2013 08:29 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Kingsley Idehen <***@openlinksw.com
>> <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Luckily, I believe only a minority of folks hold the distorted views
>> you continue to espouse in this debate.
>>
>> I actually believe the opposite. That's why I wish emails had +1 in them.
>
> Indeed, the results of this poll on the meaning of the term Linked Data
> are pretty clear, though I'm sure an extremely vocal minority will swear
> up and down that they are meaningless:
> http://goo.gl/GMeom
>
> The original poll was posted here:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/0163.html

Hi David, with all due respect, as mentioned earlier, the poll doesn't
reveal anything other than the number of people that clicked a bunch of
buttons. Practically speaking, the answer is "yes" when the question is
phrased that way. I don't think anyone (most?) is disputing that here,
but its take away, if any.

However, on the mailing list, I feel that everyone is responding to two
different questions. One camp is looking at "Linked Data" as closely
tied to RDF, and another as something broader, more towards the "weaving
the web" vision. There is no conflict here as I see it but a strong need
for clarity and patience in these discussions.

In order to learn from one another, I'd like to invite all to describe
Linked Data using their own words. It might actually reveal more about
what we understand as a community (as opposed to a poll with fixed
answers), and then figure out how to communicate better. If I'm not
being overly presumptuous, we are all on the same boat at the end of the
day :)

Explain Linked Data Like I'm Five:

http://www.reddit.com/r/semanticweb/comments/1gbuvp/explain_linked_data_like_im_five/

-Sarven

[Luca Matteis]

Tim-Berner's Lee page (http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html) that
describes what Linked Data is, has a picture of a mug. This mug mentions
"RDF" twice! Both in the 4 and the 5 stars sections of the mug.

I understand that there could be other ways (other than RDF) to make Linked
Data work. But RDF *is* part of Linked Data's definition, and part of the
reason why it works!

Why else would Tim put that mug at the top of that page, and why would so
many people buy it?


On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Sarven Capadisli <info-L0ENCkCUh5Gw5LPnMra/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On 06/18/2013 03:24 PM, David Booth wrote:
>
>> On 06/18/2013 08:29 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org
>>> <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org**>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Luckily, I believe only a minority of folks hold the distorted views
>>> you continue to espouse in this debate.
>>>
>>> I actually believe the opposite. That's why I wish emails had +1 in them.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed, the results of this poll on the meaning of the term Linked Data
>> are pretty clear, though I'm sure an extremely vocal minority will swear
>> up and down that they are meaningless:
>> http://goo.gl/GMeom
>>
>> The original poll was posted here:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-lod/2013Jun/**0163.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/0163.html>
>>
>
> Hi David, with all due respect, as mentioned earlier, the poll doesn't
> reveal anything other than the number of people that clicked a bunch of
> buttons. Practically speaking, the answer is "yes" when the question is
> phrased that way. I don't think anyone (most?) is disputing that here, but
> its take away, if any.
>
> However, on the mailing list, I feel that everyone is responding to two
> different questions. One camp is looking at "Linked Data" as closely tied
> to RDF, and another as something broader, more towards the "weaving the
> web" vision. There is no conflict here as I see it but a strong need for
> clarity and patience in these discussions.
>
> In order to learn from one another, I'd like to invite all to describe
> Linked Data using their own words. It might actually reveal more about what
> we understand as a community (as opposed to a poll with fixed answers), and
> then figure out how to communicate better. If I'm not being overly
> presumptuous, we are all on the same boat at the end of the day :)
>
> Explain Linked Data Like I'm Five:
>
> http://www.reddit.com/r/**semanticweb/comments/1gbuvp/**
> explain_linked_data_like_im_**five/<http://www.reddit.com/r/semanticweb/comments/1gbuvp/explain_linked_data_like_im_five/>
>
> -Sarven
>
>

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/18/13 9:53 AM, David Booth wrote:
> [Oops! I just noticed this stuck in my out box]
>
> On 06/17/2013 08:07 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 6/17/13 1:35 AM, David Booth wrote:
>>>
>>> If the term Linked Data is "hijacked" by a broader population
>>> to mean *any* sort of data that is linked -- not necessarily
>>> RDF -- then this will be a major loss to the Semantic Web
>>> community, because it is very hard to come up with simple ways
>>> to communicate the essence of the Semantic Web. The Linked
>>> Data meme has been extremely helpful. If the RDF component
>>> is lost, we will have lost the best meme we have ever had for
>>> explaining the Semantic Web.`
>> David,
>>
>> It's possible to debate a matter without unnecessary use of inflammatory
>> language. I would happily debate you any day about this subject matter,
>> but I struggle with your choice of words.
>
> I sincerely apologize if it sounded inflammatory, as it was not
> intended that way. it was intended to be accurately descriptive of
> how it feels.
>
>>
>> Have you considered that "hijacked" is utterly unnecessary in this
>> debate? Irrespective of who might be right or wrong, nobody is trying to
>> hijack anything.
>
> I chose that word because it accurately describes how it feels to have
> such an important meme taken away by having its meaning altered in
> such a critical way.
>
>> Put differently, can you make a convincing case against
>> that fact that by inserting RDF -- in immutable form -- into the Linked
>> Data conversation (retrospectively) it could also be perceived by some
>> as hijacking?
>
> Yes. That is why I put the word in quotes: to acknowledge that that
> is one perspective, and others with a different perspective may look
> at it differently. apparently I should have pushed in a more explicit
> disclaimer such as: ". . . at least, that is how it *feels*".
>
>>
>> If you recall, your fundamental thesis is predicated on the notion that
>> it took TimBL 3 years (between 2006 and 2009) to realize that he was
>> inarticulate about RDF in all his prior Linked Data related memes.
>
> No, it is not. Again, my thesis is: (a) "Linked Data" is a term of
> art, in the Semantic Web community, that implies the use of RDF; and
> (b) the loss of that term as a term of art (by altering its meaning in
> a critical way) would be harmful to the goals of the Semantic Web.
>
> David
>
>
>
David,

First off, this is an important debate that's also getting healthier.
It's one this community should really have addressed years ago i.e., the
moment TimBL altered his original meme.

Anyway, as they say, a picture speaks a thousand words, so here is a
URI/URL that denotes a Web accessible graphics resource [1] illustrating
how I see the intersection of:

1. Identifiers -- e.g., URIs
2. Structured Data Representation -- entity relationship statements
(representable as graphs)
3. Logic (specifically Predicate Logic) -- entity relationship semantics.

My fundamental positions remain as follows:

1. Linked Data isn't *uniquely constructable* using RDF -- i.e.,
developers or end-users don't need to know anything about RDF en route
to creating and publishing Web accessible documents comprised of Linked
Data content (note: these docs will be 100% compliant with the
principles outlined in TimBL's original meme).

2. Linked Data isn't a W3C "term of art" -- I am unaware of any
operating system or programming language that doesn't (ultimately)
exploit Linked Data i.e, name->address indirection

3. RDF is all about Blogic (Web-scale Predicate Logic) -- of course,
Linked Data makes this scale to the World Wide Web, but (even as I
write) there is no mandatory IRI de-refrence requirement in any W3C RDF
spec (published or drafted).

If the positions outlined above are in fact true, how can it be
beneficial to conflate Linked Data and RDF when the ultimate outcome is
ambiguity laden confusion, compounded by superficial political
deadlock? How do any of the aforementioned outcomes help the broader
community (i.e., outside the W3C) appreciate, and then participate in a
crowd-sourced approach to increasing the semantic fidelity of the
relations around which the World Wide Web is woven, on a daily basis?

I don't believe in draconian mandates, even when they are disguised as
specs. The World Wide Web is the most *democratic* technology of our
time. HTML isn't in broad use by mandate. It's in broad use because the
folks at Mozilla/Netscape figured out a simple pattern (aka. "view
source" ) that enabled everyday users rapidly learn how to publish
web-like documents tp the World Wide Web. The fact that said documents
where HTML based had little to do with the World Wide Web bootstrap.

IMO: It isn't the job of the W3C to prescribe Web standards. It is the
job of the W3C to standardize what's in broad use on the World Wide Web
i.e., formally standardize de facto standards (which also have the
distinct benefit of practical industrial use and contributions from
industrial-domain experts).

Links:

1. http://twitpic.com/cxw5ex/full -- Identifiers, Structured Data
Representation, and Logic (specifically Predicate Logic)

2. http://bit.ly/XAyU3F -- view source pattern and the critical role it
played re., World Wide Web bootstrap (ironically penned by a Semantic
Web critic).

--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Luca Matteis]

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> First off, this is an important debate that's also getting healthier. It's
> one this community should really have addressed years ago i.e., the moment
> TimBL altered his original meme.


Kingsley, I agree that this is a very healthy discussion. But I fear it's
leading us nowhere. You have your opinion and I have mine.

I (and others) have tried with some evidence, and you've tried with some
evidence as well. But neither of us is changing their minds.

I am not sure how to continue this discussion. Nothing you've said so far
has proven to me that Linked Data can be used without RDF. And I wasn't
successful at proving to you the opposite.

Let's go back to actual work. The definition of what exactly Linked Data is
will constantly evolve and change. Let's let the adoption decide what
Linked Data actually means. Let's not impose it ourselves.

Luca

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/18/13 11:42 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>
> I am not sure how to continue this discussion. Nothing you've said so
> far has proven to me that Linked Data can be used without RDF. And I
> wasn't successful at proving to you the opposite.
The point is: whether you can produce Linked Data without RDF. Of course
you can. And of course you don't have to take my word for it. That said,
I wouldn't sit back and allow confusion reign over the hard work many
have put into making Linked Data what it is today.

If you invest your time in a little background history, you will
actually come to realize that the LOD community (long before the W3C
hosted this list) and DBpedia projects where motivated by the desire to
get beyond the same old "broken narrative" quagmires created around RDF.

Sadly for many of us, instead of learning from the past, we now have to
painfully watch resurrection of the same old behavioral patterns that
created the initial problems for RDF -- problems that have lead to the
R-D-F reflux ailment which (unfortunately) afflicts more people that
many RDFers are willing to appreciate.

FWIW -- The W3C is not supposed to be in the technology branding
business. It's job is to standardize the loosely coupled technical
components that constitute the World Wide Web.

--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Ted Thibodeau Jr]

On Jun 18, 2013, at 09:24 AM, David Booth wrote:

> On 06/18/2013 08:29 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org
>> <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Luckily, I believe only a minority of folks hold the distorted views
>> you continue to espouse in this debate.
>>
>> I actually believe the opposite. That's why I wish emails had +1 in them.
>
> Indeed, the results of this poll on the meaning of the term Linked Data are pretty clear, though I'm sure an extremely vocal minority will swear up and down that they are meaningless:
> http://goo.gl/GMeom
>
> The original poll was posted here:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/0163.html


As several others (not all extremely vocal, though a visible
minority) have said, that poll was very poorly designed.

It was written to force your desired answer, and fails to
make any point except that "good survey design is hard."

I'd like to see the results of a well-designed survey on the
subject, particularly if it is answered by a random group of
people who haven't necessarily been privy to the ongoing
debates -- optimally including people from a range of
industries and disciplines, academic and otherwise...

Unfortunately, good survey is to me like much product design
was to Steve Jobs. I know it when I see it, and I can provide
useful tweaks, but I am hard-pressed to spec it out beforehand.

Be seeing you,

Ted


--
A: Yes. http://www.guckes.net/faq/attribution.html
| Q: Are you sure?
| | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
| | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

Ted Thibodeau, Jr. // voice [phone] x32
Senior Support & Evangelism // mailto:tthibodeau-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org
// http://twitter.com/TallTed
OpenLink Software, Inc. // http://www.openlinksw.com/
10 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 265, Burlington MA 01803
Weblog -- http://www.openlinksw.com/blogs/
LinkedIn -- http://www.linkedin.com/company/openlink-software/
Twitter -- http://twitter.com/OpenLink
Google+ -- http://plus.google.com/100570109519069333827/
Facebook -- http://www.facebook.com/OpenLinkSoftware
Universal Data Access, Integration, and Management Technology Providers

[エリクソン トーレ]

> 差出人: Melvin Carvalho [mailto:***@gmail.com]
> 送信日時: 2013年6月18日 20:59
> 1. Linked Data MAY be RDF.
>
> NOT
>
> 2. Linked Data MUST be RDF.
>
> I think any attempts to rebrand LD as enforcing the latter is likely to
> be unsuccessful, and perhaps even an unproductive use of time.
>
> I think most people have a pretty good intuition of the terms, and how
> to use them to achieve interop, and get work done.

An addendum to 1.:

1.1. However, useful* linked data will always be directly mappable to RDF.

I would be interested in seeing some linked data that is incompatible
with RDF while still adhering to rules like using global identifiers
and typed links.

Tore

* I wouldn't consider linked data with untyped links usefuld, but I

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/18/13 7:32 PM, ゚リク゜ン　トヌレ wrote:
>> 差出人: Melvin Carvalho [mailto:***@gmail.com]
>> 送信日時: 2013幎6月18日 20:59
>> 1. Linked Data MAY be RDF.
>>
>> NOT
>>
>> 2. Linked Data MUST be RDF.
>>
>> I think any attempts to rebrand LD as enforcing the latter is likely to
>> be unsuccessful, and perhaps even an unproductive use of time.
>>
>> I think most people have a pretty good intuition of the terms, and how
>> to use them to achieve interop, and get work done.
> An addendum to 1.:
>
> 1.1. However, useful* linked data will always be directly mappable to RDF.

Put differently, you produce more useful Linked Data via RDF. That's
something that easily demonstrable too!

>
> I would be interested in seeing some linked data that is incompatible
> with RDF while still adhering to rules like using global identifiers
> and typed links.

Nobody is claiming that Linked Data is incompatible with RDF. The point
being made is that you can produce Linked Data, that 100% compliant with
TimBL's original Linked Data meme, without any knowledge or use of RDF.
That's all. None of that implies RDF is useless etc.. It simply means
that Linked Data and RDF aren't the same thing.

Linked Data and RDF have a mutually beneficial association.
>
> Tore
>
> * I wouldn't consider linked data with untyped links usefuld, but I
> guess some people might...

Nobody has made any claims of that kind.

BTW -- What is an untyped link? As far as I know there aren't any
untyped Links on the World Wide Web, it just so happens that the
semantics of the relations denoted by said links aren't necessarily
machine-comprehensible (or interpretable) :-)


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[エリクソン トーレ]

> -----元のメッセージ-----
> 差出人: Kingsley Idehen [mailto:***@openlinksw.com]
> 送信日時: 2013年6月19日 10:25
> On 6/18/13 7:32 PM, エリクソン　トーレ wrote:
>> An addendum to 1.:
>>
>> 1.1. However, useful* linked data will always be directly mappable to
>> RDF.
>
> Put differently, you produce more useful Linked Data via RDF. That's
> something that easily demonstrable too!
>
>>
>> I would be interested in seeing some linked data that is incompatible
>> with RDF while still adhering to rules like using global identifiers
>> and typed links.
>
> Nobody is claiming that Linked Data is incompatible with RDF. The point
> being made is that you can produce Linked Data, that 100% compliant with
> TimBL's original Linked Data meme, without any knowledge or use of RDF.
> That's all. None of that implies RDF is useless etc.. It simply means
> that Linked Data and RDF aren't the same thing.

My point was that even if the data producer doesn't know anything about
RDF, when applying the meme he will produce something that follows
the RDF abstract syntax. That is the strength of RDF and why I think
it is an intrinsic part of Linked Data. The exact semantics of RDF,
its typed literals and blank nodes may be hard to explain, but the
basic concept is not. Neither is it unique to RDF, as you pointed
out elswere,

>> * I wouldn't consider linked data with untyped links useful, but I
>> guess some people might...
>
> Nobody has made any claims of that kind.
>
> BTW -- What is an untyped link? As far as I know there aren't any
> untyped Links on the World Wide Web, it just so happens that the
> semantics of the relations denoted by said links aren't necessarily
> machine-comprehensible (or interpretable) :-)

For me HTML 4.1 links lacking a @rel or @rev are untyped. I suppose
you could type them implicitly as rdfs:seeAlso or something similar.
I also ment to include typed links where the type lacks, as you say,
(RDF-)specified semantics.

Tore Er

[Luca Matteis]

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org
> wrote:

> I'd like to see the results of a well-designed survey on the
> subject
>

It's funny because all the people (only 3 counted so far) that are
complaining about the quality of the poll question, aren't coming up with a
better question to ask.

To me "In normal usage within the Semantic Web community, does the term
"Linked Data" imply the use of RDF?" is a well designed question that
exposes the *evidence* about whether the term Linked Data implies RDF. This
is the entire subject of our current debate.

And the results show a 82% trend towards this view. So I don't understand
why people think it's a poorly designed question. Can you please then come
up with a better designed question to ask?

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/19/13 2:29 AM, ゚リク゜ン　トヌレ wrote:
>> -----元のメッセヌゞ-----
>> 差出人: Kingsley Idehen [mailto:***@openlinksw.com]
>> 送信日時: 2013幎6月19日 10:25
>> On 6/18/13 7:32 PM, ゚リク゜ン　トヌレ wrote:
>>> An addendum to 1.:
>>>
>>> 1.1. However, useful* linked data will always be directly mappable to
>>> RDF.
>> Put differently, you produce more useful Linked Data via RDF. That's
>> something that easily demonstrable too!
>>
>>> I would be interested in seeing some linked data that is incompatible
>>> with RDF while still adhering to rules like using global identifiers
>>> and typed links.
>> Nobody is claiming that Linked Data is incompatible with RDF. The point
>> being made is that you can produce Linked Data, that 100% compliant with
>> TimBL's original Linked Data meme, without any knowledge or use of RDF.
>> That's all. None of that implies RDF is useless etc.. It simply means
>> that Linked Data and RDF aren't the same thing.
> My point was that even if the data producer doesn't know anything about
> RDF, when applying the meme he will produce something that follows
> the RDF abstract syntax.

RDF's abstract syntax is Subject->Predicate->Object. And what I am
telling you is that it isn't a unique distinguishing feature since a lot
of other folks are familiar with Entity->Attribute->Value.

The 3-tuple approach to relationship representation isn't a
distinguishing characteristic of RDF. I produced an venn diagram [1] to
make this a little clearer. I also produced a sample document comprised
of structured data which isn't uniquely RDF [2].


> That is the strength of RDF and why I think
> it is an intrinsic part of Linked Data.

Please look at the venn diagram.

> The exact semantics of RDF,
> its typed literals and blank nodes may be hard to explain, but the
> basic concept is not. Neither is it unique to RDF, as you pointed
> out elswere,
>
>>> * I wouldn't consider linked data with untyped links useful, but I
>>> guess some people might...
>> Nobody has made any claims of that kind.
>>
>> BTW -- What is an untyped link? As far as I know there aren't any
>> untyped Links on the World Wide Web, it just so happens that the
>> semantics of the relations denoted by said links aren't necessarily
>> machine-comprehensible (or interpretable) :-)
> For me HTML 4.1 links lacking a @rel or @rev are untyped.

But it isn't about HTML its about URIs. The Web is a woven together via
the URIs that denote the following Relations:

1. linksTo -- as exemplified by HTML anchors you have
[DocURI/URL]--(href)--->[DocURI/URL] (note: href is a linksTo Relation)
2. Denotes -- when a URI denotes an Entity there is an implicit Relation
i.e., [Identifier]--(denotes)--->[thing] (on the Web URIs provide the
denotation function).

> I suppose
> you could type them implicitly as rdfs:seeAlso or something similar.
> I also ment to include typed links where the type lacks, as you say,
> (RDF-)specified semantics.
>
> Tore Eriksson
Links:

1. http://bit.ly/16EVFVG -- Venn diagram illustrating how Identifiers
(URIs), Structured Data (Linked Data), and RDF (Predicate Logic) are related
2.
http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test.ttl
-- what makes this uniquely RDF?

--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/19/13 4:34 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>
> To me "In normal usage within the Semantic Web community, does the
> term "Linked Data" imply the use of RDF?" is a well designed question
> that exposes the *evidence* about whether the term Linked Data implies
> RDF. This is the entire subject of our current debate.
It isn't, that's the problem. Put differently, nobody is disputing the
fact that in the Semantic Web community RDF is associated with Linked
Data. Even the more extreme fact that they are inextricably bound or
tightly coupled.

The issues at hand are as follows:

1. Is RDF the only option for producing Linked Data that's 100%
compliant with TimBL's original meme?
2. Are RDF and Linked Data tightly or loosely coupled?

Links:

1. http://bit.ly/16EVFVG -- Venn diagram illustrating how Identifiers
(URIs), Structured Data (Linked Data), and RDF (Predicate Logic) are
related
2.
http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test.ttl
-- what makes this uniquely RDF?

--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Norman Gray]

Kingsley and all, hello.

On 2013 Jun 19, at 12:06, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> The issues at hand are as follows:
>
> 1. Is RDF the only option for producing Linked Data that's 100% compliant with TimBL's original meme?
> 2. Are RDF and Linked Data tightly or loosely coupled?

Those are good and clear, but I think a third issue is:

3. Do the answers matter?

There seem to be two strands in this thread (which I think has now spread across multiple lists). One strand is concerned to devise a precise definition of what Linked Data means, and hence what's included in, and excluded from, the definition (call this the 'technical strand'); the other is content to see Linked Data as a rather 'softer' or vaguer thing, concerned with rhetoric, exposition or dissemination (call this the 'sociotechnical strand').

* For the technical strand, of course the answers matter, because how else can you decide whether something is compliant with TimBL's meme (I'm not sure that memes include conformance clauses, but we can let that pass...!). Hence discussion of reasoning, logic, expressiveness, 'overtly RDF', your Venn diagram, and so on.

* From the point of view of the sociotechnical strand, the answers don't matter ('distinction without a difference'), because these are non-questions, because 'linked data' isn't something that can be complied with or not. Or, put another way, concluding that something is or is not officially Linked Data doesn't imply anything important.

I think there's a certain amount of talking past one another in this thread, because arguments in one strand seem muddled or even mischievous when viewed from the other.

Does this help this thread at all?

All the best,

Norman


--
Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK

[William Waites]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:32:42 +0000, $B%(%j%/%=%s!!%H!<%l(B <t-eriksson-***@public.gmane.org> said:

> I would be interested in seeing some linked data that is
> incompatible with RDF while still adhering to rules like using
> global identifiers and typed links.


@prefix ex: <http://example.org/>
@prefix u: <http://example.org/units>

ex:distance ex:earth ex:moon 381550 25150 u:km.

This relation has a typed link (ex:distance) between two
non-informational resources (ex:earth, ex:moon). It has a distance
that has units as well as a datatype, and a +/- uncertainty thrown in
for good measure. I could even imagine the ex:distance predicate to be
self-describing in the usual way, defining its arity and the meaning
and type of its arguments.

I think this can quite sensibly be called Linked Data and whilst with
sufficient contortions (reification, abuse of datatypes, perhaps
anonymous or parametrised predicates) it can be shoehorned into RDF,
it really doesn't happen naturally or obviously enough that it could
be called "compatible" in my opinion.

Happy hacking,
-w

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/19/13 7:33 AM, Norman Gray wrote:
> Kingsley and all, hello.
>
> On 2013 Jun 19, at 12:06, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>> The issues at hand are as follows:
>>
>> 1. Is RDF the only option for producing Linked Data that's 100% compliant with TimBL's original meme?
>> 2. Are RDF and Linked Data tightly or loosely coupled?
> Those are good and clear, but I think a third issue is:
>
> 3. Do the answers matter?
>
> There seem to be two strands in this thread (which I think has now spread across multiple lists). One strand is concerned to devise a precise definition of what Linked Data means, and hence what's included in, and excluded from, the definition (call this the 'technical strand'); the other is content to see Linked Data as a rather 'softer' or vaguer thing, concerned with rhetoric, exposition or dissemination (call this the 'sociotechnical strand').

The answers matter because the collective goal is getting more end-users
and developers on board, without being overbearing and draconian.
Basically, end-users and developers fall into the following camps:

1. completely new to all the technical elements -- that includes the
Web's technical architecture

2. Web 2.0 developers and users -- this is where R-D-F reflux is strong
for a myriad of reasons (due to bottom-up narratives that are
provincial, conflation laden, and recited like mantras)

3. experienced applications & systems developers, systems integrators,
and users -- the folks with 10 - 20+ years of expertise covering
development, implementation, and use of operating systems, DBMS, and
business applications (these folks understand data structures, data
access by references, pointers, relations etc..).


>
> * For the technical strand, of course the answers matter, because how else can you decide whether something is compliant with TimBL's meme (I'm not sure that memes include conformance clauses, but we can let that pass...!). Hence discussion of reasoning, logic, expressiveness, 'overtly RDF', your Venn diagram, and so on.

It applies to the #1 too, the venn isn't low level, it basically depicts
the fact that Identifiers, Structured Data, and Predicate Logic are
loosely coupled pieces of the puzzle. Of course, I am not assuming they
possess mastery of all three circles.
>
> * From the point of view of the sociotechnical strand, the answers don't matter ('distinction without a difference'), because these are non-questions, because 'linked data' isn't something that can be complied with or not. Or, put another way, concluding that something is or is not officially Linked Data doesn't imply anything important.

The fact that "Linked Data" denotes as a principled approach to
structured data representation does need to be clearly understood. I say
that because the phrase denotes a concept with uniquely distinguishing
characteristics.

It is important to understand that all structured data representation
isn't web-like (webby).

It is important to understand that web-like doesn't mean the World Wide
Web.

It is important to understand that you can scale web-like structured
data to the World Wide Web and Internet via choice of identifier type
(e.g., HTTP URIs).

It is important to understand that all web-like structured data (scaled
to the World Wide Web or not) isn't necessary endowed with *explicit*
relationship semantics that are comprehensible to both humans and machines.

>
> I think there's a certain amount of talking past one another in this thread, because arguments in one strand seem muddled or even mischievous when viewed from the other.

Yes, I agree!

From my vantage point, the ability to speak clearly about Linked Data,
RDF, and the Semantic Web is very important. Same thing applies to doing
so in credible fashion, to a variety of target audiences.

As I've stated in earlier threads, in the context of profile #3 above,
there are times when RDF narratives simply come across as "teaching
parents how to make babies" which simply leads to folks building up
contemptuous walls of resistance.
>
> Does this help this thread at all?

A lot!

Thanks!

>
> All the best,
>
> Norman
>
>


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Hugh Glaser]

Firstly, having now read the threads, I thank you all for a lot of very interesting and thoughtful words.
Also, as best I can describe what I think, it seems that David Booth has eloquently said much of what I would say.

I'm not sure if there are many people still reading these threads, but, just diving in by responding to Norman's message, I think the answer does matter somewhat (hence I asked it), although not necessarily because of the two strands Norman mentions.

The question I sort of thought I was asking was indeed a social one.
And very personal.
I want to discuss stuff about Linked Data (with capitals) in a forum with other people who share sufficiently similar views of what Linked Data means so that the discussion is productive etc..
To me, if Linked Data does not (at the moment) assume that RDF is involved, whatever that might mean, then the discussion is unlikely to be productive, and can actually be quite destructive. This is because of a constant widening of issues, rather than focussing on the primary topics.
The threads (plus personal emails) give me a sense that there is a majority who would like to avoid taking the discussions outside the RDF world, but that there is a vocal minority who will resist this at all costs.

I actually think that the question we are trying to answer is what is the scope of this list.
In a strong sense, Linked Data is what *we* decide it is; we don't have to worry about history, or anything like that (sunk costs), but what we want it to be now. That is, for the LOD list - we certainly have no control over what others might mean by it, any more than Engineers in the UK have control over the fact that the person who fixes the home appliances is commonly referred to as an engineer, or Xerox have control over people using the term in common speech to mean copy (or Hoover, etc.).
But we can try to organise our community (exceptionally fragile as it is), so that we can have productive discussions around what a core of people want to discuss under the term Linked Data.

So what should I do? - Remember, I said this was personal.

Well, if the vocal minority decide that they cannot choose to narrow the view they have of Linked Data to exclude the more general stuff, so that discussions are focussed around stuff that assumes RDF, then I will obviously withdraw.
That's fine with me, although I think it will be a shame.
There is another list (Semweb) that will be a better sole home.
Of course, an alternative would be to have a new list, on W3C or elsewhere, such as Google groups.
This would be for Linked Data discussion, with a current assumption of RDF.
We could even call it Linked Data, as opposed to Linked Open Data, which would actually more accurately describe what gets discussed, in some sense.

Best to you all
Hugh

On 19 Jun 2013, at 12:33, Norman Gray <norman-+***@public.gmane.org>
wrote:

>
> Kingsley and all, hello.
>
> On 2013 Jun 19, at 12:06, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>> The issues at hand are as follows:
>>
>> 1. Is RDF the only option for producing Linked Data that's 100% compliant with TimBL's original meme?
>> 2. Are RDF and Linked Data tightly or loosely coupled?
>
> Those are good and clear, but I think a third issue is:
>
> 3. Do the answers matter?
>
> There seem to be two strands in this thread (which I think has now spread across multiple lists). One strand is concerned to devise a precise definition of what Linked Data means, and hence what's included in, and excluded from, the definition (call this the 'technical strand'); the other is content to see Linked Data as a rather 'softer' or vaguer thing, concerned with rhetoric, exposition or dissemination (call this the 'sociotechnical strand').
>
> * For the technical strand, of course the answers matter, because how else can you decide whether something is compliant with TimBL's meme (I'm not sure that memes include conformance clauses, but we can let that pass...!). Hence discussion of reasoning, logic, expressiveness, 'overtly RDF', your Venn diagram, and so on.
>
> * From the point of view of the sociotechnical strand, the answers don't matter ('distinction without a difference'), because these are non-questions, because 'linked data' isn't something that can be complied with or not. Or, put another way, concluding that something is or is not officially Linked Data doesn't imply anything important.
>
> I think there's a certain amount of talking past one another in this thread, because arguments in one strand seem muddled or even mischievous when viewed from the other.
>
> Does this help this thread at all?
>
> All the best,
>
> Norman
>
>
> --
> Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk
> SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK
>
>

[Barry Norton]

On 19/06/2013 13:06, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> The answers matter because the collective goal is getting more
> end-users and developers on board, without being overbearing and
> draconian. Basically, end-users and developers fall into the following
> camps:
>
> 1. completely new to all the technical elements -- that includes the
> Web's technical architecture
>

Are they helped by saying "there's RDF/XML, RDFa, Turtle, JSON-LD though
you can use what you want... but we've no tools to help you unless your
stuff becomes RDF"?

> 2. Web 2.0 developers and users -- this is where R-D-F reflux is
> strong for a myriad of reasons (due to bottom-up narratives that are
> provincial, conflation laden, and recited like mantras)

Are they helped by saying (the above)

>
> 3. experienced applications & systems developers, systems integrators,
> and users -- the folks with 10 - 20+ years of expertise covering
> development, implementation, and use of operating systems, DBMS, and
> business applications (these folks understand data structures, data
> access by references, pointers, relations etc..).

Are they helped by going beyond the analogy (and let's face it, RDF is
like EAV/CR, but it's not how people use that technology), and saying
"use what you want... but it won't work with anything else without
making RDF"?


I'm all for an architectural/philosophical consideration of what Linked
Data is, but I don't think we're being sensitive to what the 1000+
subscribers of this list are mainly looking for, which is best practice
and working technology in my opinion.

Barry

[Luca Matteis]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Barry Norton <barry.norton-GLb3q/kNL5FWk0Htik3J/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> I'm all for an architectural/philosophical consideration of what Linked
> Data is, but I don't think we're being sensitive to what the 1000+
> subscribers of this list are mainly looking for, which is best practice and
> working technology in my opinion.


+1

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/19/13 8:09 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
> Firstly, having now read the threads, I thank you all for a lot of very interesting and thoughtful words.
> Also, as best I can describe what I think, it seems that David Booth has eloquently said much of what I would say.
>
> I'm not sure if there are many people still reading these threads, but, just diving in by responding to Norman's message, I think the answer does matter somewhat (hence I asked it), although not necessarily because of the two strands Norman mentions.
>
> The question I sort of thought I was asking was indeed a social one.
> And very personal.
> I want to discuss stuff about Linked Data (with capitals) in a forum with other people who share sufficiently similar views of what Linked Data means so that the discussion is productive etc..

Maybe subject of another thread, but this is your fundamental
assumption: every one that subscribes to this list assumes that Linked
Data and RDF are one and the same thing. Put differently, even if they
don't assume them to be one and the same thing, the don't see how one
can be discussed without inferring the other, right?

If I've correctly outlined your fundamental position, then I add some
clarity to my world view, I don't believe this mailing list is about
such presumptions. And I don't think being hosted by the W3C mandates
such presumptions about the lists subscriber profile.

Am I correct in assuming that what I outlined in my Venn diagram [1] is
heresy on this list?
> To me, if Linked Data does not (at the moment) assume that RDF is involved, whatever that might mean, then the discussion is unlikely to be productive, and can actually be quite destructive.
> This is because of a constant widening of issues, rather than focussing on the primary topics.
So I can assume that you are inferring the following, with regards to
the Venn diagram:

1. it's destructive
2. it's widening issues.

> The threads (plus personal emails) give me a sense that there is a majority who would like to avoid taking the discussions outside the RDF world, but that there is a vocal minority who will resist this at all costs.
>
> I actually think that the question we are trying to answer is what is the scope of this list.

Yes, which is basically the point I made higher up in this post. This is
another important issue that needs to be addressed (just like the 2009
Linked Data meme revision) on this thread. Could even help David Booth
construct a new survey, this is really important to me, personally.

> In a strong sense, Linked Data is what *we* decide it is; we don't have to worry about history, or anything like that (sunk costs), but what we want it to be now.

Sorry, I disagree.

> That is, for the LOD list - we certainly have no control over what others might mean by it, any more than Engineers in the UK have control over the fact that the person who fixes the home appliances is commonly referred to as an engineer, or Xerox have control over people using the term in common speech to mean copy (or Hoover, etc.).
> But we can try to organise our community (exceptionally fragile as it is), so that we can have productive discussions around what a core of people want to discuss under the term Linked Data.

I think you are contradicting yourself. I say that because you believe
(as expressed higher up in this post) that this list should be about a
specific Linked Data connotation. It also appears to me you find
debating thorny issues problematic.

>
> So what should I do? - Remember, I said this was personal.

Same here, with regards to your comments in this post.

>
> Well, if the vocal minority decide that they cannot choose to narrow the view they have of Linked Data to exclude the more general stuff, so that discussions are focussed around stuff that assumes RDF, then I will obviously withdraw.
> That's fine with me, although I think it will be a shame.
> There is another list (Semweb) that will be a better sole home.

And that list existed before any incarnation of this list. How come that
list isn't a hotbed of discussion about RDF and Linked Data? Remember,
it is the Semantic Web list.
> Of course, an alternative would be to have a new list, on W3C or elsewhere, such as Google groups.
> This would be for Linked Data discussion, with a current assumption of RDF.
> We could even call it Linked Data, as opposed to Linked Open Data, which would actually more accurately describe what gets discussed, in some sense.

RDF Linked Data would be a proper name for such a list.

Links:

1. http://bit.ly/16EVFVG -- Venn diagram illustrating how Identifiers
(URIs), Structured Data (Linked Data), and RDF (Predicate Logic) are
related .


Kingsley
>
> Best to you all
> Hugh
>
> On 19 Jun 2013, at 12:33, Norman Gray <norman-+***@public.gmane.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Kingsley and all, hello.
>>
>> On 2013 Jun 19, at 12:06, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>
>>> The issues at hand are as follows:
>>>
>>> 1. Is RDF the only option for producing Linked Data that's 100% compliant with TimBL's original meme?
>>> 2. Are RDF and Linked Data tightly or loosely coupled?
>> Those are good and clear, but I think a third issue is:
>>
>> 3. Do the answers matter?
>>
>> There seem to be two strands in this thread (which I think has now spread across multiple lists). One strand is concerned to devise a precise definition of what Linked Data means, and hence what's included in, and excluded from, the definition (call this the 'technical strand'); the other is content to see Linked Data as a rather 'softer' or vaguer thing, concerned with rhetoric, exposition or dissemination (call this the 'sociotechnical strand').
>>
>> * For the technical strand, of course the answers matter, because how else can you decide whether something is compliant with TimBL's meme (I'm not sure that memes include conformance clauses, but we can let that pass...!). Hence discussion of reasoning, logic, expressiveness, 'overtly RDF', your Venn diagram, and so on.
>>
>> * From the point of view of the sociotechnical strand, the answers don't matter ('distinction without a difference'), because these are non-questions, because 'linked data' isn't something that can be complied with or not. Or, put another way, concluding that something is or is not officially Linked Data doesn't imply anything important.
>>
>> I think there's a certain amount of talking past one another in this thread, because arguments in one strand seem muddled or even mischievous when viewed from the other.
>>
>> Does this help this thread at all?
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Norman
>>
>>
>> --
>> Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk
>> SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK
>>
>>
>
>
>


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Melvin Carvalho]

On 19 June 2013 14:09, Hugh Glaser <hg-jaJdc+oKuOm+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Firstly, having now read the threads, I thank you all for a lot of very
> interesting and thoughtful words.
> Also, as best I can describe what I think, it seems that David Booth has
> eloquently said much of what I would say.
>
> I'm not sure if there are many people still reading these threads, but,
> just diving in by responding to Norman's message, I think the answer does
> matter somewhat (hence I asked it), although not necessarily because of the
> two strands Norman mentions.
>
> The question I sort of thought I was asking was indeed a social one.
> And very personal.
> I want to discuss stuff about Linked Data (with capitals) in a forum with
> other people who share sufficiently similar views of what Linked Data means
> so that the discussion is productive etc..
> To me, if Linked Data does not (at the moment) assume that RDF is
> involved, whatever that might mean, then the discussion is unlikely to be
> productive, and can actually be quite destructive. This is because of a
> constant widening of issues, rather than focussing on the primary topics.
> The threads (plus personal emails) give me a sense that there is a
> majority who would like to avoid taking the discussions outside the RDF
> world, but that there is a vocal minority who will resist this at all costs.
>
> I actually think that the question we are trying to answer is what is the
> scope of this list.
> In a strong sense, Linked Data is what *we* decide it is; we don't have to
> worry about history, or anything like that (sunk costs), but what we want
> it to be now. That is, for the LOD list - we certainly have no control over
> what others might mean by it, any more than Engineers in the UK have
> control over the fact that the person who fixes the home appliances is
> commonly referred to as an engineer, or Xerox have control over people
> using the term in common speech to mean copy (or Hoover, etc.).
> But we can try to organise our community (exceptionally fragile as it is),
> so that we can have productive discussions around what a core of people
> want to discuss under the term Linked Data.
>
> So what should I do? - Remember, I said this was personal.
>
> Well, if the vocal minority decide that they cannot choose to narrow the
> view they have of Linked Data to exclude the more general stuff, so that
> discussions are focussed around stuff that assumes RDF, then I will
> obviously withdraw.
> That's fine with me, although I think it will be a shame.
> There is another list (Semweb) that will be a better sole home.
> Of course, an alternative would be to have a new list, on W3C or
> elsewhere, such as Google groups.
> This would be for Linked Data discussion, with a current assumption of RDF.
> We could even call it Linked Data, as opposed to Linked Open Data, which
> would actually more accurately describe what gets discussed, in some sense.
>

This was a brand discussion about LD based on some text in a spec.
Thankfully, that issue is now resolved.

I think it's clear that this list is about Linked Open Data, and everyone
will have a nuanced view on that, based on their own experience and
preference.

If you feel very strongly on this issue (I dont think most do), the W3C has
a good mechanism for any set of topics in the form of community groups, you
just need an audience (at least 5) and a chair.


>
> Best to you all
> Hugh
>
> On 19 Jun 2013, at 12:33, Norman Gray <norman-+***@public.gmane.org>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Kingsley and all, hello.
> >
> > On 2013 Jun 19, at 12:06, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> >
> >> The issues at hand are as follows:
> >>
> >> 1. Is RDF the only option for producing Linked Data that's 100%
> compliant with TimBL's original meme?
> >> 2. Are RDF and Linked Data tightly or loosely coupled?
> >
> > Those are good and clear, but I think a third issue is:
> >
> > 3. Do the answers matter?
> >
> > There seem to be two strands in this thread (which I think has now
> spread across multiple lists). One strand is concerned to devise a precise
> definition of what Linked Data means, and hence what's included in, and
> excluded from, the definition (call this the 'technical strand'); the
> other is content to see Linked Data as a rather 'softer' or vaguer thing,
> concerned with rhetoric, exposition or dissemination (call this the
> 'sociotechnical strand').
> >
> > * For the technical strand, of course the answers matter, because how
> else can you decide whether something is compliant with TimBL's meme (I'm
> not sure that memes include conformance clauses, but we can let that
> pass...!). Hence discussion of reasoning, logic, expressiveness, 'overtly
> RDF', your Venn diagram, and so on.
> >
> > * From the point of view of the sociotechnical strand, the answers
> don't matter ('distinction without a difference'), because these are
> non-questions, because 'linked data' isn't something that can be complied
> with or not. Or, put another way, concluding that something is or is not
> officially Linked Data doesn't imply anything important.
> >
> > I think there's a certain amount of talking past one another in this
> thread, because arguments in one strand seem muddled or even mischievous
> when viewed from the other.
> >
> > Does this help this thread at all?
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Norman
> >
> >
> > --
> > Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk
> > SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK
> >
> >
>
>
>

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/19/13 8:15 AM, Barry Norton wrote:
> On 19/06/2013 13:06, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> The answers matter because the collective goal is getting more
>> end-users and developers on board, without being overbearing and
>> draconian. Basically, end-users and developers fall into the
>> following camps:
>>
>> 1. completely new to all the technical elements -- that includes the
>> Web's technical architecture
>>
>
> Are they helped by saying "there's RDF/XML, RDFa, Turtle, JSON-LD
> though you can use what you want... but we've no tools to help you
> unless your stuff becomes RDF"?
>
>> 2. Web 2.0 developers and users -- this is where R-D-F reflux is
>> strong for a myriad of reasons (due to bottom-up narratives that are
>> provincial, conflation laden, and recited like mantras)
>
> Are they helped by saying (the above)
>
>>
>> 3. experienced applications & systems developers, systems
>> integrators, and users -- the folks with 10 - 20+ years of expertise
>> covering development, implementation, and use of operating systems,
>> DBMS, and business applications (these folks understand data
>> structures, data access by references, pointers, relations etc..).
>
> Are they helped by going beyond the analogy (and let's face it, RDF is
> like EAV/CR, but it's not how people use that technology), and saying
> "use what you want... but it won't work with anything else without
> making RDF"?

None of the above.

You help them understand that structured data can be web-like.

You help them understand that web-like structured data can scale to the
World Wide Web. If they need this then HTTP URIs are a cost-effective
route.

You help them understand that web-like structured data can also include
*explicit* entity relationship semantics that enables humans and
machines do much more with the structured data.

It's a structured data narrative that goes top-down that helps. That's
the complete opposite of a bottom-up narrative about RDF/XML, RDFa,
Turtle, JSON-LD etc.. which are about notations for encoding the
structured data above, when taking the RDF route. Those same notations
(and others e.g., CSV, OData etc..) can also be applied by those that
are taking the EAV/CR route. Net effect, everyone ends up dealing with
web-like structured data as the common base.
>
>
> I'm all for an architectural/philosophical consideration of what
> Linked Data is, but I don't think we're being sensitive to what the
> 1000+ subscribers of this list are mainly looking for, which is best
> practice and working technology in my opinion.

I don't think any of us speak for 1000+ individuals. I think that's
inherently contradictory :-)
>
> Barry
>
>
>
>
>


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Barry Norton]

On 19/06/2013 13:40, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> [...] That's the complete opposite of a bottom-up narrative about
> RDF/XML, RDFa, Turtle, JSON-LD etc.

I couldn't agree more. I do a lot of training on Linked Data, and many
audiences I'm faced with are old-school DBAs and architects. I'm no
stranger to there being different possible narratives and I don't
denigrate your EAV spiel in this role.

All the same, that this list needs to come to philosophical consensus to
develop new didactics is something I am very worried about (I firmly
believe that long philosophical threads lose subscribers).

>
>> Barry wrote:
>>
>> [...] I don't think we're being sensitive to what the 1000+
>> subscribers of this list are mainly looking for
>
> I don't think any of us speak for 1000+ individuals. I think that's
> inherently contradictory :-)

Nor do I. Hence "think". I'd intend not to speak for, but to survey...

Barry

[Hugh Glaser]

Hi Kingsley,
Some answers:
On 19 Jun 2013, at 13:33, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On 6/19/13 8:09 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
>> Firstly, having now read the threads, I thank you all for a lot of very interesting and thoughtful words.
>> Also, as best I can describe what I think, it seems that David Booth has eloquently said much of what I would say.
>>
>> I'm not sure if there are many people still reading these threads, but, just diving in by responding to Norman's message, I think the answer does matter somewhat (hence I asked it), although not necessarily because of the two strands Norman mentions.
>>
>> The question I sort of thought I was asking was indeed a social one.
>> And very personal.
>> I want to discuss stuff about Linked Data (with capitals) in a forum with other people who share sufficiently similar views of what Linked Data means so that the discussion is productive etc..
>
> Maybe subject of another thread, but this is your fundamental assumption: every one that subscribes to this list assumes that Linked Data and RDF are one and the same thing. Put differently, even if they don't assume them to be one and the same thing, the don't see how one can be discussed without inferring the other, right?
Absolutely not.
RDF is frequently discussed, especially on the SemWeb list, without any assumption of Linked Data.
In fact, when I venture onto the SemWeb list I try hard to avoid Linked Data assumptions, since my understanding is that many members do not find the Linked Data stuff directly interesting, and the focus of that list is best kept separate from Linked Data, in particular with respect to resolvable URIs.
>
> If I've correctly outlined your fundamental position, then I add some clarity to my world view, I don't believe this mailing list is about such presumptions. And I don't think being hosted by the W3C mandates such presumptions about the lists subscriber profile.
No mandates intended - just social constructs for focussed and productive discussion.
>
> Am I correct in assuming that what I outlined in my Venn diagram [1] is heresy on this list?
>> To me, if Linked Data does not (at the moment) assume that RDF is involved, whatever that might mean, then the discussion is unlikely to be productive, and can actually be quite destructive.
>> This is because of a constant widening of issues, rather than focussing on the primary topics.
> So I can assume that you are inferring the following, with regards to the Venn diagram:
>
> 1. it's destructive
> 2. it's widening issues.
Basically yes - because widening the whole thing at this stage makes it harder to focus on the problems we currently have.
>
>> The threads (plus personal emails) give me a sense that there is a majority who would like to avoid taking the discussions outside the RDF world, but that there is a vocal minority who will resist this at all costs.
>>
>> I actually think that the question we are trying to answer is what is the scope of this list.
>
> Yes, which is basically the point I made higher up in this post. This is another important issue that needs to be addressed (just like the 2009 Linked Data meme revision) on this thread. Could even help David Booth construct a new survey, this is really important to me, personally.
>
>> In a strong sense, Linked Data is what *we* decide it is; we don't have to worry about history, or anything like that (sunk costs), but what we want it to be now.
>
> Sorry, I disagree.
Admirably clear, thanks.
So without discussing what it is technical, where does the social consensus, or whatever you think it is, come from?
Or is it simply a reference to some historical document?
>
>> That is, for the LOD list - we certainly have no control over what others might mean by it, any more than Engineers in the UK have control over the fact that the person who fixes the home appliances is commonly referred to as an engineer, or Xerox have control over people using the term in common speech to mean copy (or Hoover, etc.).
>> But we can try to organise our community (exceptionally fragile as it is), so that we can have productive discussions around what a core of people want to discuss under the term Linked Data.
>
> I think you are contradicting yourself. I say that because you believe (as expressed higher up in this post) that this list should be about a specific Linked Data connotation. It also appears to me you find debating thorny issues problematic.
>
>>
>> So what should I do? - Remember, I said this was personal.
>
> Same here, with regards to your comments in this post.
>
>>
>> Well, if the vocal minority decide that they cannot choose to narrow the view they have of Linked Data to exclude the more general stuff, so that discussions are focussed around stuff that assumes RDF, then I will obviously withdraw.
>> That's fine with me, although I think it will be a shame.
>> There is another list (Semweb) that will be a better sole home.
>
> And that list existed before any incarnation of this list. How come that list isn't a hotbed of discussion about RDF and Linked Data? Remember, it is the Semantic Web list.
I think I answered this above.
Instead of having one discussion list for anything about the world, lists get segmented into different ones that have certain focusses - this is a very helpful way of helping people to get the best value out of their time interacting.
>> Of course, an alternative would be to have a new list, on W3C or elsewhere, such as Google groups.
>> This would be for Linked Data discussion, with a current assumption of RDF.
>> We could even call it Linked Data, as opposed to Linked Open Data, which would actually more accurately describe what gets discussed, in some sense.
>
> RDF Linked Data would be a proper name for such a list.
As I said, I would badge it Linked Data.

Best
Hugh
>
> Links:
>
> 1. http://bit.ly/16EVFVG -- Venn diagram illustrating how Identifiers (URIs), Structured Data (Linked Data), and RDF (Predicate Logic) are related .
>
>
> Kingsley
>>
>> Best to you all
>> Hugh
>>
>> On 19 Jun 2013, at 12:33, Norman Gray <norman-+***@public.gmane.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Kingsley and all, hello.
>>>
>>> On 2013 Jun 19, at 12:06, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>>
>>>> The issues at hand are as follows:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Is RDF the only option for producing Linked Data that's 100% compliant with TimBL's original meme?
>>>> 2. Are RDF and Linked Data tightly or loosely coupled?
>>> Those are good and clear, but I think a third issue is:
>>>
>>> 3. Do the answers matter?
>>>
>>> There seem to be two strands in this thread (which I think has now spread across multiple lists). One strand is concerned to devise a precise definition of what Linked Data means, and hence what's included in, and excluded from, the definition (call this the 'technical strand'); the other is content to see Linked Data as a rather 'softer' or vaguer thing, concerned with rhetoric, exposition or dissemination (call this the 'sociotechnical strand').
>>>
>>> * For the technical strand, of course the answers matter, because how else can you decide whether something is compliant with TimBL's meme (I'm not sure that memes include conformance clauses, but we can let that pass...!). Hence discussion of reasoning, logic, expressiveness, 'overtly RDF', your Venn diagram, and so on.
>>>
>>> * From the point of view of the sociotechnical strand, the answers don't matter ('distinction without a difference'), because these are non-questions, because 'linked data' isn't something that can be complied with or not. Or, put another way, concluding that something is or is not officially Linked Data doesn't imply anything important.
>>>
>>> I think there's a certain amount of talking past one another in this thread, because arguments in one strand seem muddled or even mischievous when viewed from the other.
>>>
>>> Does this help this thread at all?
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Norman
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk
>>> SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>
>

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/19/13 8:49 AM, Barry Norton wrote:
> On 19/06/2013 13:40, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> [...] That's the complete opposite of a bottom-up narrative about
>> RDF/XML, RDFa, Turtle, JSON-LD etc.
>
> I couldn't agree more. I do a lot of training on Linked Data, and many
> audiences I'm faced with are old-school DBAs and architects. I'm no
> stranger to there being different possible narratives and I don't
> denigrate your EAV spiel in this role.
>
> All the same, that this list needs to come to philosophical consensus
> to develop new didactics is something I am very worried about (I
> firmly believe that long philosophical threads lose subscribers).
>
>>
>>> Barry wrote:
>>>
>>> [...] I don't think we're being sensitive to what the 1000+
>>> subscribers of this list are mainly looking for
>>
>> I don't think any of us speak for 1000+ individuals. I think that's
>> inherently contradictory :-)
>
> Nor do I. Hence "think". I'd intend not to speak for, but to survey...

Such a survey would be very useful :-)

Kingsley
>
> Barry
>
>


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Dominic Oldman]

This email from Hugh for me is absolutely key and while this list naturally talks about a range of theoretical issues (and definitions) I feel that it needs to start coming to conclusions about how it gets from the theoretical discussions to practical and sustainable (sustainability and stability are key) applications that serve a wide range of audience types.

When Hugh talks about sharing a particular view I also think about the need to share particular objectives, and a particular vision, and match this with a practical way forward. When Hugh talks about widening of issues I think about how we are ever going to produce practical applications based on linked data principles, that operate over many different and varied datasets, and which are trusted and robust. It might be worth moving the conversation to think about practical use cases and reaching conclusions about what it would actually take to produce the solutions that are desperately needed, not to satisfy the people on this list (who all share an interest in making this work), but all the people who deserve to receive the benefits that linked data groups constantly promise but haven't yet delivered  - but which are achievable.

How does my sector create useful applications that operate across the extremely diverse and varied datasets that highly individual cultural heritage organisations produce but which together form a body of work that could revolutionise the way that we work, discover, collaborate and disseminate important information about our world and culture? Simply publishing 'linked data' in an random and uncoordinated way is not enough. Many (including subscribers to this list) are attempting to find a practical route forward and are working hard to create and demonstrate practical solutions (through practical end user applications using RDF and robust contextual standards) and, if necessary, will focus on better practical solutions - but based on firm and solid (theoretical integrity is important and the views of people on this list and others are therefore also very important) foundations. We do this also thinking hard about the type of infrastructure and support
that we would also need to establish.
 
The type of focus that Hugh talks about would be very welcome. I want to contribute to a discussion about RDF and the other standards that work with it to reach objectives and benefits within particular domains, but in parallel also talk about how we join (link) these different knowledge domains together - in a more focused and strategic way.


Cheers,

Dominic




________________________________
From: Hugh Glaser <hg-jaJdc+oKuOm+***@public.gmane.org>
To: "public-lod-***@public.gmane.org community" <public-lod-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 19 June 2013, 13:09
Subject: Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF


Firstly, having now read the threads, I thank you all for a lot of very interesting and thoughtful words.
Also, as best I can describe what I think, it seems that David Booth has eloquently said much of what I would say.

I'm not sure if there are many people still reading these threads, but, just diving in by responding to Norman's message, I think the answer does matter somewhat (hence I asked it), although not necessarily because of the two strands Norman mentions.

The question I sort of thought I was asking was indeed a social one.
And very personal.
I want to discuss stuff about Linked Data (with capitals) in a forum with other people who share sufficiently similar views of what Linked Data means so that the discussion is productive etc..
To me, if Linked Data does not (at the moment) assume that RDF is involved, whatever that might mean, then the discussion is unlikely to be productive, and can actually be quite destructive. This is because of a constant widening of issues, rather than focussing on the primary topics.
The threads (plus personal emails) give me a sense that there is a majority who would like to avoid taking the discussions outside the RDF world, but that there is a vocal minority who will resist this at all costs.

I actually think that the question we are trying to answer is what is the scope of this list.
In a strong sense, Linked Data is what *we* decide it is; we don't have to worry about history, or anything like that (sunk costs), but what we want it to be now. That is, for the LOD list - we certainly have no control over what others might mean by it, any more than Engineers in the UK have control over the fact that the person who fixes the home appliances is commonly referred to as an engineer, or Xerox have control over people using the term in common speech to mean copy (or Hoover, etc.).
But we can try to organise our community (exceptionally fragile as it is), so that we can have productive discussions around what a core of people want to discuss under the term Linked Data.

So what should I do? - Remember, I said this was personal.

Well, if the vocal minority decide that they cannot choose to narrow the view they have of Linked Data to exclude the more general stuff, so that discussions are focussed around stuff that assumes RDF, then I will obviously withdraw.
That's fine with me, although I think it will be a shame.
There is another list (Semweb) that will be a better sole home.
Of course, an alternative would be to have a new list, on W3C or elsewhere, such as Google groups.
This would be for Linked Data discussion, with a current assumption of RDF.
We could even call it Linked Data, as opposed to Linked Open Data, which would actually more accurately describe what gets discussed, in some sense.

Best to you all
Hugh

On 19 Jun 2013, at 12:33, Norman Gray <norman-+***@public.gmane.org>
wrote:

>
> Kingsley and all, hello.
>
> On 2013 Jun 19, at 12:06, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>> The issues at hand are as follows:
>>
>> 1. Is RDF the only option for producing Linked Data that's 100% compliant with TimBL's original meme?
>> 2. Are RDF and Linked Data tightly or loosely coupled?
>
> Those are good and clear, but I think a third issue is:
>
> 3. Do the answers matter?
>
> There seem to be two strands in this thread (which I think has now spread across multiple lists).  One strand is concerned to devise a precise definition of what Linked Data means, and hence what's included in, and excluded from, the definition  (call this the 'technical strand'); the other is content to see Linked Data as a rather 'softer' or vaguer thing, concerned with rhetoric, exposition or dissemination (call this the 'sociotechnical strand').
>
>  * For the technical strand, of course the answers matter, because how else can you decide whether something is compliant with TimBL's meme (I'm not sure that memes include conformance clauses, but we can let that pass...!).  Hence discussion of reasoning, logic, expressiveness, 'overtly RDF', your Venn diagram, and so on.
>
>  * From the point of view of the sociotechnical strand, the answers don't matter ('distinction without a difference'), because these are non-questions, because 'linked data' isn't something that can be complied with or not.  Or, put another way, concluding that something is or is not officially Linked Data doesn't imply anything important.
>
> I think there's a certain amount of talking past one another in this thread, because arguments in one strand seem muddled or even mischievous when viewed from the other.
>
> Does this help this thread at all?
>
> All the best,
>
> Norman
>
>
> --
> Norman Gray  :  http://nxg.me.uk
> SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK
>
>

[David Booth]

On 06/19/2013 02:29 AM, エリクソン　トーレ wrote:
> My point was that even if the data producer doesn't know anything about
> RDF, when applying the meme he will produce something that follows
> the RDF abstract syntax. That is the strength of RDF and why I think
> it is an intrinsic part of Linked Data.

+1

The data does not have to *look* like RDF to *be* (interpretable as)
RDF. But to support the goal of the Semantic Web, it is important
*specifically* that the data be interpretable as RDF.

As I pointed out before:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/0208.html
[[
> Why does RDF need to be the standard universal information
> model? not because it is perfect, but because *some*
> standard universal information model is needed, and that is
> the one that was chosen, just as URIs were chosen to be the
> standard universal identification convention. [ . . . ]
>
> why couldn't other sufficiently powerful information models
> achieve the same Semantic Web goal just as well, and be used
> in addition to RDF? Because that would fragment the web.
> instead of one web we would have many webs, each one its
> own walled garden, and that is not [the] Semantic Web goal.
> without a shared information model, client applications
> would not be able to meaningfully combine the data from
> those walled gardens.
]]

David

[David Booth]

On 06/19/2013 08:33 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> Maybe subject of another thread, but this is your fundamental
> assumption: every one that subscribes to this list assumes that Linked
> Data and RDF are one and the same thing.

Kingsley, it has been REPEATEDLY pointed out to you that neither I nor
(AFAICT) *anyone* else on this list believe that Linked Data and RDF are
"one and the same thing". And yet you continue to make this blatantly
false claim. PLEASE STOP!!!

Please have the professional integrity to avoid such obviously false
characterizations of other people's positions. They are destructive to
what could otherwise be a legitimate debate about how this community
chooses to define the term "Linked Data". And they are DAMNED ANNOYING.

The only way we are going to make constructive progress on this list is
if those with differing views honestly try to *understand* those
differing views and attempt to address them *accurately*, rather than
repeatedly making provocative misleading caricatures of them.

Thank you,
David

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/19/13 5:21 PM, David Booth wrote:
> On 06/19/2013 08:33 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> Maybe subject of another thread, but this is your fundamental
>> assumption: every one that subscribes to this list assumes that Linked
>> Data and RDF are one and the same thing.
>
> Kingsley, it has been REPEATEDLY pointed out to you that neither I nor
> (AFAICT) *anyone* else on this list believe that Linked Data and RDF
> are "one and the same thing". And yet you continue to make this
> blatantly false claim. PLEASE STOP!!!
>
> Please have the professional integrity to avoid such obviously false
> characterizations of other people's positions. They are destructive
> to what could otherwise be a legitimate debate about how this
> community chooses to define the term "Linked Data". And they are
> DAMNED ANNOYING.
>
> The only way we are going to make constructive progress on this list
> is if those with differing views honestly try to *understand* those
> differing views and attempt to address them *accurately*, rather than
> repeatedly making provocative misleading caricatures of them.
>
> Thank you,
> David
>
>
>
>
>

David,

Where do we differ? Please make this clear in your own words. I will
then respond. Again, you can keep the tone civil this is a debate.
Hopefully, there will be a positive outcome for at least one of us.

BTW -- I also have a reply to your earlier mail where I specifically
point out where I disagree with the manner in which you are framing the
relationship between RDF and Linked Data. That post might be helpful
here too.


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/19/13 3:41 PM, David Booth wrote:
> On 06/19/2013 02:29 AM, ゚リク゜ン　トヌレ wrote:
>> My point was that even if the data producer doesn't know anything about
>> RDF, when applying the meme he will produce something that follows
>> the RDF abstract syntax. That is the strength of RDF and why I think
>> it is an intrinsic part of Linked Data.
>
> +1
>
> The data does not have to *look* like RDF to *be* (interpretable as) RDF.

I am not disputing that.

> But to support the goal of the Semantic Web, it is important
> *specifically* that the data be interpretable as RDF.

I am not disputing that. The Semantic Web is about RDF based Blogic.

My simple point (which I will defend vigorously) is this:

You don't need to know anything about RDF to create and publish Linked
Data in line with TimBL's original Linked Data meme.

"interpretable as RDF" is a Blogic requirement. That isn't a Linked Data
requirement.

Interpretation is about understanding. A Linked Data graph is comprised
of Triples that represent how a entities are related i.e., the Triple is
a representation of a Relationship between two entities, facilitated the
relationship predicate. The semantics of the relationship may be
*explicit* or *implicit*. These semantics may or may not be machine or
human comprehensible.

RDF makes the entity relationship semantics expressed in a triple
machine-comprehensible (at the very least). An RDF processor can
interpret RDF statements. A Linked Data processor on the other hand,
simply follows the links unveiled by content published (via public or
private web-like documents) using the principles outlined in TimBL's
original meme.

You are trying to shy away from "inference" and "reasoning" (key RDF
features) while making an "all or nothing" grab for the much more
generic concept of Linked Data.

"term or art" , "interpretable" , "ambiguity" etc.. aren't the key
points around which to mount a defense or justification for trying to
infer that RDF is the only option for Linked Data. It just doesn't
compute and It isn't defensible.

Linked Data, RDF, and the Semantic Web are three distinct things. If
they weren't three distinct things. They do not denote the same concept.
They denote three puzzle pieces that add utility to the web-like
structured data representation that can scale to the World Wide Web,
subject to choices you make about identifiers used to denote entities in
relationships represented by 3-tuple (or triples) based propositional
statements (or claims).

A URI is the basic unit of Data-de-silo-fication. That came along and
enabled a World Wide Web long before the letters "RDF" became associated
with the concept of web-like structured data endowed with machine- and
human-comprehensible entity relationship semantics.

>
> As I pointed out before:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/0208.html
> [[
> > Why does RDF need to be the standard universal information
> > model? not because it is perfect, but because *some*
> > standard universal information model is needed, and that is
> > the one that was chosen, just as URIs were chosen to be the
> > standard universal identification convention. [ . . . ]
> >
> > why couldn't other sufficiently powerful information models
> > achieve the same Semantic Web goal just as well, and be used
> > in addition to RDF? Because that would fragment the web.
> > instead of one web we would have many webs, each one its
> > own walled garden, and that is not [the] Semantic Web goal.
> > without a shared information model, client applications
> > would not be able to meaningfully combine the data from
> > those walled gardens.
> ]]
>
> David
>
>
>

See my comments above :-)

Links:

1. http://bit.ly/16EVFVG -- Illustrating why you can have Linked Data
that complies with TimBL's original Linked Data meme without any
knowledge of RDF
2. http://slidesha.re/18CtxGK-- Blogic (what RDF adds to Linked Data
i.e., semantically enhanced web-like data that can scale to the World
Wide Web)
3. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-design-goals -- RDF design
goals circa. 2004 specs
4. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/ -- RDF 1.1
5. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-design-goals -- What is an
RDF predicate? Also note the Graph definition (a set of Triples).


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/19/13 5:36 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 6/19/13 3:41 PM, David Booth wrote:
>> On 06/19/2013 02:29 AM, ゚リク゜ン　トヌレ wrote:
>>> My point was that even if the data producer doesn't know anything about
>>> RDF, when applying the meme he will produce something that follows
>>> the RDF abstract syntax. That is the strength of RDF and why I think
>>> it is an intrinsic part of Linked Data.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> The data does not have to *look* like RDF to *be* (interpretable as)
>> RDF.
>
> I am not disputing that.
>
>> But to support the goal of the Semantic Web, it is important
>> *specifically* that the data be interpretable as RDF.
>
> I am not disputing that. The Semantic Web is about RDF based Blogic.
>
> My simple point (which I will defend vigorously) is this:
>
> You don't need to know anything about RDF to create and publish Linked
> Data in line with TimBL's original Linked Data meme.
>
> "interpretable as RDF" is a Blogic requirement. That isn't a Linked
> Data requirement.
>
> Interpretation is about understanding. A Linked Data graph is
> comprised of Triples that represent how a entities are related i.e.,
> the Triple is a representation of a Relationship between two entities,
> facilitated the relationship predicate. The semantics of the
> relationship may be *explicit* or *implicit*. These semantics may or
> may not be machine or human comprehensible.
>
> RDF makes the entity relationship semantics expressed in a triple
> machine-comprehensible (at the very least). An RDF processor can
> interpret RDF statements. A Linked Data processor on the other hand,
> simply follows the links unveiled by content published (via public or
> private web-like documents) using the principles outlined in TimBL's
> original meme.
>
> You are trying to shy away from "inference" and "reasoning" (key RDF
> features) while making an "all or nothing" grab for the much more
> generic concept of Linked Data.
>
> "term or art" , "interpretable" , "ambiguity" etc.. aren't the key
> points around which to mount a defense or justification for trying to
> infer that RDF is the only option for Linked Data. It just doesn't
> compute and It isn't defensible.
>
>

Typo fixed and updated edition of what followed the statements above:

Linked Data, RDF, and the Semantic Web are three distinct but things.
They denote three puzzle pieces that add utility to web-like structured
data representation that can scale to the World Wide Web, subject to
choices you make about identifiers used to denote entities in
relationships represented by 3-tuple (or triples) based propositional
statements (or claims).

A URI is the basic unit of Data-de-silo-fication.

URIs (as you know) came along and enabled a World Wide Web long before
the letters "RDF" became associated with the concept of web-like
structured data -- enhanced with machine- and human-comprehensible
entity relationship semantics.

--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Damian Steer]

On 19 Jun 2013, at 22:36, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> You are trying to shy away from "inference" and "reasoning" (key RDF features)

Inference and reasoning are not key features of RDF. I'm reasonably sure most apache jena users aren't using reasoning engines, and they still find utility in RDF as a schemaless web-aware graph model.

Damian*










* who apologises for extending this thread

[Luca Matteis]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> You don't need to know anything about RDF to create and publish Linked
> Data in line with TimBL's original Linked Data meme.


Can you please then setup a pool asking "Does creating and publishing
Linked Data require knowledge of RDF?"

My answer would still be "Yes". But please setup this pool so we can have
concrete evidence and hopefully put this discussion to rest.

Luca

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/19/13 6:11 PM, Damian Steer wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2013, at 22:36, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>> You are trying to shy away from "inference" and "reasoning" (key RDF features)
> Inference and reasoning are not key features of RDF. I'm reasonably sure most apache jena users aren't using reasoning engines, and they still find utility in RDF as a schemaless web-aware graph model.
>
> Damian*

To be more precise, relative to basic Linked Data, "inference" and
"reasoning" are distinguishing RDF features. If not, how would you
distinguish Linked Data and RDF?

Note, David Booth has made it clear in one of his more recent responses
that he isn't claiming that Linked Data and RDF are indistinguishable. I
believe he is claiming that RDF makes Linked Data interpretable. If so,
how does one achieve the aforementioned goal without being able to
reason on the semantics of the entity relationships represented by a
3-tuple (or triple) based propositional statements?

As for thread extension, note, we haven't even opened up the SPARQL can
of worms re., Linked Data.

To cut a long story short, I am simply trying to highlight the fact that
RDF and SPARQL are simply implementation details re. Linked Data. They
can be used to produce Linked Data, but not uniquely so.

Kingsley
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * who apologises for extending this thread
>
>


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/19/13 6:22 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Kingsley Idehen
> <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org <mailto:kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>
> You don't need to know anything about RDF to create and publish
> Linked Data in line with TimBL's original Linked Data meme.
>
>
> Can you please then setup a pool asking "Does creating and publishing
> Linked Data require knowledge of RDF?"
>
> My answer would still be "Yes". But please setup this pool so we can
> have concrete evidence and hopefully put this discussion to rest.
>
> Luca

If you believe that question needs clarifying then why can't you create
an publish a poll? David simply used features provided by Google docs.
There are many tools for creating polls.

I'll vote for sure with an emphatic "No" :-)

--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

[Luca Matteis]

David, can you please do this? I don't know Google Forms and I like the way
you worded the explanation on how to use the poll.


On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> On 6/19/13 6:22 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
>
>> You don't need to know anything about RDF to create and publish Linked
>> Data in line with TimBL's original Linked Data meme.
>
>
> Can you please then setup a pool asking "Does creating and publishing
> Linked Data require knowledge of RDF?"
>
> My answer would still be "Yes". But please setup this pool so we can
> have concrete evidence and hopefully put this discussion to rest.
>
> Luca
>
>
> If you believe that question needs clarifying then why can't you create an
> publish a poll? David simply used features provided by Google docs. There
> are many tools for creating polls.
>
> I'll vote for sure with an emphatic "No" :-)
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>

[Damian Steer]

On 19 Jun 2013, at 23:25, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen-HpHEqLDO2a7UEDaH6ef/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> To be more precise,

Uh-huh.

> relative to basic Linked Data, "inference" and "reasoning" are distinguishing RDF features.

s/RDF/Semantic web/ and you might well be right.

> If not, how would you distinguish Linked Data and RDF?

I think that might be begging the question.

Damian